Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 Scope and Purpose .................................................................................................................. 2 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3 Progress against the London Plan’s Six Objectives ................................................................. 7 Progress on the Sub Regional Implementation Frameworks (SRIF) ........................................... 12 Progress on Supplementary Planning Guidance, Best Practice Guidance and Mayoral Strategies .......................................................... 13 Progress on Major Developments .......................................................................................... 15 Summary of Mayoral Planning Activity .................................................................................. 16 London Development Database .......................................................................................... 19 London Planning Awards 2010/11 ...................................................................................... 20 Update on inter regional issues .......................................................................................... 23 Outer London Commission .................................................................................................. 23 Olympic and Paralympic Games ......................................................................................... 23 Looking to the Future ............................................................................................................. 24 Appendix 1 – Key Performance Indicators ............................................................................. 25 Objective 1 - To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces .......................................................... 25 Objective 2 - To make London a better city for people to live in ........................................ 36 Objective 3 - To make London a more prosperous city ....................................................... 48 Objective 4 - To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination ....... 52 Objective 5 - To improve London’s accessibility ................................................................. 56 Objective 6 - To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city ............... 62 Appendix 2 – Contextual Indicators ....................................................................................... 73 Appendix 3 - Schedule of Progress on Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification ......... 76 Appendix 4 - National Regional Planning Guidance Indicators ............................................. 79 Appendix 5 - Mayoral activity on Development Plans ............................................................ 80 Appendix 6 - Affordability Thresholds for Social and Intermediate housing ......................... 82 Appendix 7 - Progress on Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) Recommendations ........ 83 Appendix 8 – Housing Provision in London 2007/8: Annual Monitor .................................... 86

Index of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Summary Progress against Key Performance Indicators ........................................... 3 Figure 1 Employment in London 1982 – 2010 ..................................................................... 9 Map 1 Borough distribution of employment loss 2008 - 2009 ............................................. 9 Figure 2 Unemployment Rate – London and UK 2007-2010 ............................................. 10 Map 2 London Public Transport Accessibility (PTAL) Map 2010 ........................................ 12 Table 2 London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ..................................................... 13 Table 3 London Plan Best Practice Guidance ....................................................................... 13 Table 4 Progress of Mayoral Strategies and priorities ............................................................ 14 Table 5 Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor ............................................................ 17 Table 6 Progress with Core Strategy Development Plan Documents .................................... 19 Table 7 London Planning Awards 2010/11 ......................................................................... 21 Table 8 Percentage of residential development on previously developed land within London 2000 – 2009/10 .......................................................... 25 Table 9 Percentage of residential development on previously developed land within London by borough

Table 10 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – all schemes

Table 11 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – schemes of 15 units or more

Table 12 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – previously published data from AMR 6

Table 13 Density of residential development approved by borough 2004/05 to 2009/10

Table 14 Density of Residential development completed by borough 2006/07 to 2009/10

Table 15 Changes in open space due to new development or change of use 2009/10

Table 16 Losses of Protected Open Space in Planning Approvals 2009/10

Table 17 Loss of Protected Open Space of 0.5 hectares or more, detail of schemes

Table 18 Borough Progress on Open Space Audits (January 2011)

Table 19 Number of net housing completions by borough 2009/10

Table 20 Housing Completion trends 2003/04 to 2009/10 (Net dwellings, conventional supply)

Table 21 Residential planning approval trends 2000/01 to 2009/10 (Net dwellings, conventional supply)

Table 22 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible homes approved during 2009/10 (all development types)

Table 23 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes approved during 2009/10 (New Build residential developments)

Table 24 Affordable Housing Construction (three year totals)

Figure 3 Borough Affordable Housing Completions (2007/08-2009/10 average)

Table 25 Affordable housing policy by borough

Table 26 Life Expectancy at Birth (2000-02 and 2007-09)

Table 27 Standardised Mortality Ratios (Ischaemic deaths)

Table 28 Proportion of London Residents Working in London 2004-2009

Table 29 Ratio of planning permissions to three year average starts in central London

Figure 4 Office starts and year-end permissions in Central London 1985-2010

Table 30 Age specific unemployment rates for White and BAME groups, Greater London - 2009

Table 31 Lone parents on Income Support as % of all lone parent families

Table 32 Percentage of pupils reaching the national benchmark of 5+ A\*-C GCSE grades in 2004/05 and 2008/09

Table 33 Public and private transport indexes

Table 34 Traffic (billion vehicle kilometres, all vehicles) 2001-2008: Inner and Outer London

Table 35 Passengers on the River Thames

Table 36 Cargo trade on the River Thames within Greater London

Table 37 Employment floorspace permitted by PTAL zone - 2009/10 Approvals

Table 38 Changes in protected habitat due to new development

Table 39: London’s municipal waste recycling rate 1996/97 – 2009/10 (percentage)

Table 40: Regional household recycling rates 2000/01 to 2009/10 (percentage)

Table 41: Total municipal waste generated in London (millions of tones)

Table 42: Waste to be managed in London apportioned by borough

Table 43: Development Plan Document and Core Strategy Consultations in 2010

Table 44: London CO2 Emissions 1990-2008

Table 45: Energy produced in London per annum from renewable sources

Table 46: Status of SFRA in each Borough (August 2010)

Table 47: Proportion of Listed Building entries at Risk in London

Figure HPM 1 Total housing provision, 2005/06 to 2009/10

Figure HPM 2 Net Conventional Housing supply 1987 – 2009/10

Table HPM 1 Total housing provision by borough and type of provision, 2009/10

Table HPM 2 Change in long term empty homes in London, HSSA and council tax data

Table HPM 3 Gross and net conventional supply by borough, 2009/10 Table HPM 4 Conventional completions by type, London boroughs 2009/10.................................93 Table HPM 5 Net conventional affordable housing supply by tenure, 2007/08 to 2009/10........94 Table HPM 6 Gross conventional housing completions by tenure and number of bedrooms, London 2009/10........................................................................................................................95 Table HPM 7 Gross conventional affordable housing supply by number of bedrooms, 2009/10 96 Table HPM 8 Conventional approvals by tenure, London boroughs 2009/10............................97 Table HPM 9 Conventional approvals by type, London boroughs 2009/10...............................98 Table HPM 10 Net conventional starts by tenure, 2009/10 ..........................................................99 Table HPM 11 Net conventional unit starts by type, 2009/10.....................................................100 Table HPM 12 Conventional homes under construction and not started, total pipeline in the London boroughs as at 31 March 2010....................................................................................101 Map HPM 1 Total housing provision 2009/10 ...........................................................................102 Map HPM 2 Housing provision as % of target 2009/10..............................................................102 Map HPM 3 Net conventional affordable housing supply as % of total net conventional supply, 2007/08 to 2009/10................................................................................................................103 Map HPM 4 Housing pipeline: Net homes not started or under construction, as at 31 March 2010 103 Figure AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery in London, 1991/92 to 2009/10 ..............................104 Table AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery in London by type, 2007/08 to 2009/10..................105 Table AHM 2 Affordable housing delivery in London boroughs by tenure, 2009/10.................106 Map AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery (by area where homes located), 2009/10 ...............107 Executive Summary

The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) is essentially concerned to assess achievement of the London Plan’s objectives. These look forward over a 20 year horizon – a long term perspective which looks across economic cycles but which in individual years will, of course, reflect their impact. This is particularly the case for AMR 7, covering 2009/10.

London’s economic output fell by 4.9% from its mid 2008 peak to the third quarter of 2009, but by the second quarter of 2010 had risen by 2.4%. GLA Economics expect that over 2011 as a whole growth may average 2.4%, and in 2012 2.9%. In employment terms, 190,000 jobs were lost during 2008 – 2009, mainly in the private sector, but there was some recovery in the first half of 2010 and GLA Economics projects 0.6% growth in 2011 and 1% in 2012.

Though unemployment across all groups has remained broadly stable during the recession at around 9%, it has had particular impact on the young and among black and other ethnic minorities. However, there is some improvement in the ratio between unemployment of white and BAME groups, and there was slower growth among London’s lone parents on income support than in the country as a whole.

The recession has also impacted on London’s successful housing record, reducing output by 16% from its 2008/9 peak to 24,300 conventional homes in 2009/10 and, unsurprisingly, to below the long term monitoring benchmark (27,600). However, the decline in residential approvals appears to be abating, falling only 5% to 44,100 and close to the average for the last decade. In percentage terms, affordable housing output remained at record levels (37% of the total), but in absolute terms fell to 9,000 in 2009/10. With capacity for over 170,000 homes in the planning pipeline, London is well placed to tackle future housing needs as it emerges from the recession.

In 2009/10 97% of approved housing was on previously developed land – far higher than the national 60% target. Housing densities in developments approved have risen to 148 dwellings per hectare in 2009/10. Less than 17 hectares of protected open space, land designated as Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and local open space, have been lost, and most of it will retain the open character or provide environmental improvements elsewhere.

In 2009/10 the Mayor secured Government recognition of the importance of continued investment in London’s public transport system, with Comprehensive Spending Review commitments to funding Crossrail and upgrading the tube as well as a revision to his London Plan to enable development to contribute to Crossrail. In 2011 there will be further improvements to the DLR to Stratford and to London Overground in both north and south London.

There is slow but steady progress in improving London’s ability to handle its own waste – recycling rates are increasing, more waste is being managed within the city’s boundaries and, overall, less waste is being generated. Boroughs are taking forward the Mayor’s waste management strategy by identifying land locally to deal with their own waste arisings. Good progress has been made on assessing flood risk with almost all boroughs meeting requirements to carry out Strategic Flood Risk Assessments. Where any part of sites of nature conservation importance has been lost it has usually proved possible to mitigate this by improvements elsewhere.

This is likely to be the last AMR before the Mayor publishes a replacement London Plan – currently expected in the summer/autumn of 2011. The next annual report will be based on a new suite of indicators, and will form part of a new approach to London Plan implementation, accompanying a new Implementation Plan. Scope and Purpose

This is the seventh London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR7). The AMR is the central document in the monitoring process required by law to assess the effectiveness of the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy (more commonly known as the London Plan, the current iteration of which was published in 2008 consolidated with alterations since 2004). It is based on the key performance indicators (KPIs) set out in Chapter 6 of the London Plan, but it also contains additional contextual information that helps highlight some more specific challenges facing London. As with past AMRs, AMR7 reviews the overall performance of the London Plan with respect to key issues and trends reported in the year 2009/10.

The figures in the appendices generally relate to the period April 2009 to March 2010, although in some cases more up to date data is provided. Where possible a time series of data is given to help show trends. The appendices also indicate a few areas where proxy data have had to be used.

This report draws on a range of data sources, but the Greater London Authority’s London Development Database (LDD) is of central importance. The LDD is a “live” system monitoring planning permissions and completions. It provides good quality, comprehensive data for the GLA and London boroughs. Data is also received from the GLA’s Data Management and Analysis Group (DMAG) and Environment Team, Transport for London, English Heritage, The Environment Agency and Port of London Authority.

The KPIs used in this report remain the same as in AMR6. A review of monitoring indicators is under way as part of the work to produce a new Replacement London Plan. It is anticipated that next year’s AMR will be based on a revised set of KPIs and that it will form a part of a new approach to London Plan implementation.

The scope of the AMR is outlined in Chapter 6B of the London Plan. It has been prepared to reflect the overall policy direction of the Plan, and does not attempt to measure and monitor each of its individual policies – this would make for a very large and complex document, and risk losing important information about overall trends amongst huge amounts of detail. The AMR continues to be important in keeping the London Plan under review (which the Mayor is legally required to do under the Greater London Authority Act 1999). It has also provided a valuable resource in preparing and scrutinising the draft replacement London Plan (further information about the new Plan is given later).

The AMR should not be confused with either:

The Mayor’s Annual Report: This is required under the GLA Act 1999. The latest report was published in June 2010 and covers the period 2009/10. It sets out the Mayor’s objectives and the action taken to implement them (looking at economic recovery, tackling crime and quality of life). It shows progress in preparing the Mayor’s strategies, the GLA’s progress against performance indicators and financial information. The report is available on the GLA’s website at http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/government/mayors-annual-report-200910.

The State of the Environment Report: This is also required to be published under the GLA Act 1999, and must be published every four years. The most recent report – the second (the first was published in May 2003) – was issued in 2007. It reports progress on many aspects of London’s environment, covering 36 specific indicators. There are some similarities with the environmental KPIs in Appendix 1 of this report. The report is available on the GLA website. The third report, which is being prepared jointly with the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission is expected to be published in summer 2011.

Overview

Table 1 Summary Progress against Key Performance Indicators

| KPI | Progress | Comment | |---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 - Increasing the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land. Maintain 96% residential development on previously developed land | + | Both approvals and completions are above the 96% target | | 2 - Increasing the density of residential development. Over 95 percent of development to comply with the housing density location and SRQ matrix | = | 94% of units were approved in compliance with or above the densities specified in the SRQ matrix. For schemes over 15 units the figure was 98% | | 3 - Protection of open space. No net loss of open space designated for protection in UDPs due to new development. | + | Nearly 17 hectares of protected open space has been subject to planning approvals, less than the 22 hectares in the previous year. In all open space there has been a net loss of 15 hectares as a result of planning approvals | | 4 - An increased supply of new homes. At least 30,500 units per year. | - | Net housing completions, including conventional and non-conventional supply and vacant properties were at 78% of target | | 5 - An increased supply of affordable homes. Completion of 50 per cent of new homes as affordable homes each year 2004–2016. | = | Completions of affordable housing are down, but remain at 37% of output | | 5a - By 2026 reducing by at least 10% the gap between life expectancy at birth in Areas for Regeneration and the average in London | + | Life expectancy continues to rise in all areas, plus there has been a decrease in the gap between life expectancy in London as a whole and that in the six boroughs that contain the majority of London’s Areas of Regeneration. | | KPI | Progress | Comment | |-----|----------|---------| | 5b - By 2015, reducing by at least 10% the gap between the age standardized death rate from coronary heart disease per 100,000 population in Areas for Regeneration and the average in London | + | The Standard Mortality Ratio in Areas for Regeneration compares better to the London average that it did in 2007. | | 6 - Net increase in the proportion of London residents working in London | + | New data shows that the proportion is up on last year, but still slightly down on 2004, the first year for which data is available. | | 7 - Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market by maintaining at least 3:1 ratio of permissions to 3-year starts | + | The ratio at the end of 2010 was 13:1, comfortably in excess of the requirement | | 8 - Direction of economic and population growth to follow the indicative sub-regional allocations and fulfil the priority to east London | + | Significant progress has been made in developing the Opportunity Areas | | 9 - Age specific unemployment rates for BAME groups to be no higher than for the white population by 2016, 50 % reduction of the difference by 2011 | + | The number of unemployed Londoners from all groups has risen since the last AMR. Londoners from BAME groups remain twice as likely as their white counterparts to be unemployed in all age groups. However there is an improvement on the ratios reported in AMR6. | | 10 - Percentage of lone parents dependant on income support to be no higher than the UK average by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011. | + | The difference between London and the rest of the country continues to fall, down to 6.1% in May 2010. This is the 5th year in a row that the ratio has improved. | | 11a - An increase in the provision of childcare places per 1,000 under fives, particularly in Areas for Regeneration | N/A | The information for this indicator is no longer available. | | 11b - An improvement in the percentage of pupils obtaining 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C in Areas for Regeneration relative to the LEA as a whole. | + | Analysis of ONS figures at Middle Super Output Area level shows that between 2004 and 2009, the % has risen by 19.07 in Areas for Regeneration compared to 15.72 in London as a whole | | KPI | Progress | Comment | |--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 12 - Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head | + | Since the base year of 2000, the index of public transport use has risen to 126.1 whereas the index of private transport use has fallen to 89.4. | | 13 - From 2001–2011, 15 per cent reduction in traffic in the congestion charging zone, zero traffic growth in inner London, and traffic growth in outer London reduced to no more than 5 per cent. | + | Traffic decreased in all zones and traffic reduction levels remain on course to exceed those required by this indicator. | | 14 - A five per cent increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2001-2011 | + & - | There was a 7.6% increase in passengers but the economic downturn has contributed to a 13% decrease in freight largely due to a decline in the amount of aggregates transported for the construction industry. | | 15 - 50 per cent increase in public transport capacity between 2001 and 2021, with interim increases to reflect Table 6A.2. | + | The government’s Comprehensive Spending Review confirmed that funding for major transport infrastructure projects in London was secure. | | 16 - Regular assessment of the adequacy of transport capacity to support development in opportunity and intensification areas. | + | The Mayor’s Transport Strategy was published in May 2010. Transport assessments are being carried out in each of the OAPFs and sub-regional transport plans are also in place in all five subregions. | | 17 - Maintain at least 50% of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 and at least 90% of B2 and B8 development in zones 0-2. | - & + | Only 43% of office space permitted falls within the high PTAL bands, but targets for B2 and B8 were met | | 18 - No net loss of designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation over the plan period. | - | Nearly 9.5 hectares of designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation could be lost as a result of planning permissions in 2009/10. However nearly 7 hectares of this is in the Olympic Park and will be offset by future improvements | | 19 - Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted At least 35 per cent by 2010 At least 45 per cent by 2015 | + | The proportion of municipal waste recycled in London rose by 2% to 27%, but is below the 35% target for 2010 | | KPI | Progress | Comment | |--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 20 - Achievement of quantified requirement for waste treatment | + | Updated waste arising and apportionment figures are being agreed as part of the Replacement of the London Plan process | | facilities | | | | 21 - 75% (16 million tonnes) of London’s waste treated or disposed | + | GLA estimates suggest that 79% of London’s waste is managed within London. | | of within London by 2010 | | | | 22 - Reduce emissions to 15 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010 | N/A | Data for 2010 will not be available until 2012. | | 20% reduction by 2016 | | | | 25% by 2020 | | | | Note: The Mayor is working towards a revised target set out in the | | | | London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI, 2008) | | | | 23 - Production of 945GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2010 | N/A | The Mayor has commissioned a major study of renewable energy in London which is due for publication during 2011. | | including at least six large wind turbines | | | | 24 - No net loss of functional flood plain within referable | = | There has been no net loss of functional floodplain to development in London. | | planning applications. | | | | 25 - Reduction in the proportion of buildings at risk as a | - | The proportion rose slightly to 2.65%, a rise of 0.02% but the overall trend is considered to be downwards | | percentage of the total number of listed buildings in London. | | |

Note: The indicators are those contained in the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2004, which was published in 2008. This is the version that is currently in force although a full review of the plan is well underway (see section on Review of the London Plan). Progress against the London Plan’s Six Objectives

Objective 1 - To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces

London continues to perform well against this objective.

By a significant margin it has consistently exceeded the national 60% benchmark for accommodating growth within its boundaries on brownfield sites. In terms of both site area and number of dwellings approved, 97% of new housing in 2009/10 was on previously developed land and the figures for housing completions were slightly higher. Table 9 shows that the figure dropped below 90% in only four boroughs.

Net loss of all types of open space in planning permissions approved has reduced since 2008/9 (from 18.2 hectares to 14.6 ha in 2009/10), though completions made greater inroads into open space last year (-10.9 hectares) than in 2008/9 (-5.6 hectares). Locally, the picture is more complex than these headline statistics would suggest. Development proposals can involve both gains and losses in open space; sometimes losses are temporary, and in other cases they are made up for by reprovision. Perhaps the clearest example of this is the loss of 6 hectares of Metropolitan Open Land in Hackney, which will be made up for by future improvements to the Olympic Park (this area is also mentioned under progress against Objective 6). Most boroughs record little or no loss.

A total of 16.8 hectares of protected open space have been subject to planning approvals in 2009/10. Most of the loss which did occur in 2009/10 was limited to a few boroughs and is part of a larger redevelopment that will be compensated for by other environmental improvements.

Table 18 shows that most boroughs (18) have completed an Open Space Strategy to inform their local protection policies, 8 have one in preparation/draft and 7 have other strategies in place.

Measures of the density of new housing development show a complex picture. Density of residential approvals has risen in 2009/10. At 148 dwellings per hectare it is still below the peak of 151 dwellings per hectare in 2007/08 but up on 2008/09. The density of new completions has also increased from 117 dwellings per hectare in 2007/8 to 139 in 2009/10.

When compared to the densities suggested in the density matrix in the London Plan, 2009/10 saw 56% of units in schemes that exceed the suggested maximum density level. As in previous years, this means that less than half of approvals (rather than the 95% target) are within the appropriate density range for particular locations.

The Mayor’s recent Interim Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, which shows how 2008 London Plan policy should be implemented to more effectively achieve this target, was introduced after the cut off date for this AMR and so does not bear on its results. For the future, its potential impact should be reinforced by refined policy and a revised KPI in the new Draft Replacement London Plan which place greater emphasis on optimising housing output in particular locations rather than simply seeking to increase density. Objective 2 - To make London a better city for people to live in

Housing provision remains fundamental to making London a better city to live in but, as in the rest of the country, economic conditions have reduced output. AMR 6 correctly anticipated that the reduction in approvals recorded in 2008/9 might presage a reduction in completions in 2009/10. Completions of conventional homes fell by 16% to some 24,300 from the 2008/9 peak of 29,000 – and to below the 27,600 dwellings per annum long term monitoring target for this type of accommodation.

However, the substantial decline in approvals appears to be abating. In 2008/9 approvals fell by over 40% from their 2007/8 peak of 80,500 but between 2008/9 and 2009/10 the reduction was only 5%, to 44,100 – a figure only slightly down on the average recorded over the last decade. London’s planning pipeline remains substantial with capacity for over 170,000 homes – equivalent to nearly 6 years’ supply – and should not constrain development when the market recovers.

Affordability remains a major housing issue for Londoners and despite the recession affordable housing output has remained significant, albeit not at the levels of the recent past. The proportion of net new conventional housing which is affordable remains at 37%, the same as 2008/9, but output has fallen back from its 10,800 peak then to 9,000 in 2009/10.

Improving provision of ‘Lifetime’ and ‘wheelchair accessible’ homes is also important in making London a better city to live in for all its residents and the proportion of ‘Lifetime’ homes approved has risen from 54% in 2008/9 to 70% in 2009/10. The proportion of approved new ‘wheelchair accessible’ homes has remained constant at 7%.

Objective 3 - To make London a more prosperous city

Though London fared better than the country as a whole during 2008-09, both went through a deep and long recession. London began to emerge from this in 2009-10. GLA Economics consider that the recovery is likely to be bumpy, with households feeling squeezed due to job insecurity, relatively stagnant wages and rising prices. These pressures have borne on the indicators measuring progress against the London Plan’s social and economic objectives in 2009/10. Economic output fell by 4.9% from its mid 2008 peak to the third quarter of 2009 but by the second quarter of 2010 had risen by 2.4%. On an annual basis, a positive outturn may be expected for 2011 and 2012 when GLA Economics project output growth of 2.4 per cent in 2011 and 2.9 per cent in 2012. Employment is forecast to grow by 0.6 per cent in 2011 and by 1.0 per cent in 2012.

The impact of the recession on London employment, and more particularly, the pattern of recovery in 2009 -10 are both difficult to gauge at present. Official employment figures1 are not available for 2010 and there is some uncertainty as to how far those for 2009 reflect actual job levels. For example, public transport passenger ridership has held up quite well since mid 2008 and the Annual Population Survey (admittedly compiled on a very different basis to the BRESS2 official employment figures) even shows a slight increase in the total number of workers in London between 2008 and 2009 (see Table 28). In contrast, the official figures for broadly the same period showed a loss of 192,000 employee jobs.

These losses are cause for concern for policy makers. However, the indications to date are that London’s employment losses would appear not to have been on the same scale as those recorded during the recession of the early 1990s when it lost almost half a million jobs (see Figure 1).

______________________________________________________________________

1 Office for National Statistics (ONS). Release of Business Register Employment Survey (BRESS) 2009: London. ONS, 2010 2 ONS 2010 op cit Map 1 shows that in percentage terms the greatest jobs losses during 2008 – 2009 were concentrated in suburban boroughs, with Sutton, Richmond, Croydon, Ealing and Waltham Forest experiencing employment loss of more than 7.4% in 2008 – 2009. However, in absolute terms jobs losses more closely mirrored concentrations of employment, with the greatest numbers of workplace jobs lost in Westminster (-23,000), Islington (-13,000), Hillingdon and Croydon (-12,000 each) and the City of London (-11,000). In the country as a whole a disproportionate percentage (85%) of employment loss has been among full time jobs. This is also true in London, but to a less marked extent (81%) even though full time employment is more common here (74% of all employment) than in Great Britain (68%).

In absolute terms, the five sectors with the greatest job losses were administrative and support service activities (-49,800), finance and insurance (-34,000), information and communication (-28,800), transport and storage (-24,300) and construction (-22,700). In 2008 these sectors accounted for 35% of London’s total employment and in the period 2008 – 2009 for 83% of its net job loss. Over the same period employment in health, social work, education and real estate grew and there was no change in public administration and defence.

The unemployment claimant count in London has remained below that for the country as a whole since the onset of the recession. The internationally defined unemployment rate has remained above it but broadly stable at around 9% (Figure 2).

**Figure 2 Unemployment Rate – London and UK 2007-2010**

![Unemployment Rate Graph](image)

**Objective 4 - To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination**

The London Plan is based upon the principles of spatial planning – that is, it deals not just with conventional land use matters, but integrates these with the spatial aspects of a range of other policy areas, including issues of social policy. The KPIs supporting these objectives are aimed at showing whether the gaps between disadvantaged communities and other Londoners are being addressed.

London’s status as a world city owes much to its global connectivity. This openness has been a great asset to London but meant that London was not immune to the recent global recession. That recession has affected progress in the Mayor’s objective of reducing Black and Minority Ethnic unemployment in absolute terms and has seen a growth in youth unemployment across all groups. However, London’s economy is resilient, as demonstrated by the fact that there was a slower growth in the number of lone parents on income support in London when compared to the national picture. There is also good news in the longer term, against a background of improving school performance across London as a whole, with a faster rate of improvement in regeneration areas.

**Objective 5 - To improve London’s accessibility**

The ongoing, substantial investment in public transport by TfL, Network Rail, Government and the private sector continues to improve London’s accessibility and thus help ease congestion on the road network. Central Government has recognised the importance of improving London’s accessibility in the Comprehensive Spending Review by ensuring the funding for the tube upgrades and Crossrail. In April 2010 the Mayor altered the London Plan to enable him to raise contributions towards the cost of Crossrail through the planning system. For the calendar year 2010, £235,000 was raised. In 2011 there will be further improvements to the DLR to Stratford. London Overground, which passes through 20 of the 33 boroughs, will see further sections open in north London in 2011 and south London in 2012. London Overground passes through some of the more deprived parts of London. Improving its service may help people living near to stations access a wider range of job opportunities. Progress will continue to be made on upgrading London Underground lines, improving the capacity and reliability of the network, which is essential to London’s economic success. The recent fall in river cargo is thought to be more of a reflection of short term economic difficulties than a longer term structural change in transport patterns.

In several important areas of planning policy (dealing, for example, with housing density and parking provision), the London Plan uses public transport accessibility levels (PTALs). At the recent examination in public of the draft replacement London Plan, questions were raised about how developers and others can make sure they are working on the basis of the most recent PTALs, given that they change as public transport services are altered and improved. The Mayor’s representatives agreed that the definitive PTAL map for each year would be published in this Report, which will allow all concerned to assure themselves that they are using the correct data. It has been decided that it would be useful to start this practice this year, and the definitive map is given in Map 2. It will then be possible to confirm that extracts from that map provided by TfL relate to this definitive version. The view of AMR users about the usefulness of this approach would be welcomed. Objective 6 - To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city

There is a slow, but steady improvement in London’s ability to handle its own waste. Recycling rates are improving, more is being managed within London, less waste is being generated. Through his municipal and business waste strategies, and in conjunction with the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWaRB), the Mayor is targeting those sectors that can help make the biggest improvements to London’s waste performance. The boroughs are bringing forward waste planning documents to ensure enough land is allocated to deal with the waste arising in their areas. Good progress has been made on assessing flood risk with almost all boroughs meeting requirements to carry out Strategic Flood Risk Assessments. Despite the recent economic downturn, the number of listed buildings at risk has remained stable and low.

While it is true that some land of nature conservation importance has been lost, it is usually only part of a site, rather than all of it, and these losses are often to enable development that can then fund improvements to the overall quality of the remaining site, which can result in an overall benefit to biodiversity. This year’s data include the loss of one large site in Hackney which is part of the Olympics site. Post-Olympics, this loss will be more than compensated for through longer-term plans for use and management of the Olympic site and Park. Progress on Supplementary Planning Guidance, Best Practice Guidance and other Mayoral Strategies

Table 2 London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance

| Supplementary Planning Guidance Title | Consultation draft | Final Document | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------| | Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment | July 2003 | April 2004 | | Interim Housing | 2009 | April 2010 | | Sustainable Design and Construction | March 2005 | May 2006 | | Land for Transport Functions | May 2006 | March 2007 | | View Management Framework Revised | April 2005 | July 2007 | | Planning for Equality and Diversity in London | May 2009 | Spring 2010 | | East London Green Grid Framework | August 2007 | February 2008 | | Providing for Children & Young People’s Play | October 2006 | March 2008 | | Industrial Capacity | October 2007 | March 2008 |

Table 3 London Plan Best Practice Guidance

| Best Practice Guidance Title | Consultation draft | Final Document | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------| | Guide to preparing Open Space Strategies | 2008 | 2009 | | Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames Implementation Report | 2003 | January 2005 | | Development Plan Policies for biodiversity | October 2004 | November 2005 | | Tomorrow’s Suburbs | February 2005 | June 2006 | | Managing the night time economy | June 2006 | March 2007 | | Health issues in Planning | June 2006 | June 2007 | | Wheelchair Accessible Housing | March 2007 | September 2007 | | Improving Access to Nature Implementation Report | March 2007 | February 2008 | | London’s Foundations (Protecting Geodiversity) | July 2008 | March 2009 |

Downloadable versions of SPGs and BPGs can be found at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/vision/supplementary-planning-guidance](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/vision/supplementary-planning-guidance).

Further information on all technical and research reports relating to the London Plan can be found at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/research-reports/technical-research-reports](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/research-reports/technical-research-reports)

A comprehensive review of the SPGs/BPGs to support the new Replacement London Plan will commence during 2011. | Strategy | Web link | First published | Updated | |----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------| | Air Quality | [http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayors-air-quality-strategy](http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayors-air-quality-strategy) | September 2002 | December 2010 | | Alcohol and Drugs | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/health/focus-issues/drugs](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/health/focus-issues/drugs) | January 2002 | | | Ambient Noise (Sounder City) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/clean-calm-city/noise](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/clean-calm-city/noise) | March 2004 | Review to be considered following publication of national Noise Strategy | | Biodiversity (Connecting with London’s Nature) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/urban-space/biodiversity](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/urban-space/biodiversity) | July 2002 | | | Business Waste Management | [http://www.london.gov.uk/consultation/waste-strategy](http://www.london.gov.uk/consultation/waste-strategy) | Draft published October 2010. Consultation closed January 2011 | | Childcare | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/young-people/early-years-family-support](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/young-people/early-years-family-support) | Report published July 2010 | | Children and Young People (Young Londoners – Successful Futures) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/young-londoners-successful-futures](http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/young-londoners-successful-futures) | Report published July 2010 | | Climate Change Adaptation | [http://www.london.gov.uk/climatechange/strategy](http://www.london.gov.uk/climatechange/strategy) | Assembly draft August 2008, public draft February 2010, consultation closed May 2010 | | Climate Change Mitigation & Energy (Delivering London’s Energy Future) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/climate-change/climate-change-mitigation-strategy](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/climate-change/climate-change-mitigation-strategy) | Energy strategy February 2004 | Draft published October 2010, consultation closed January 2011 | | Culture (Cultural Metropolis) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/get-involved/consultations/current-consultations/cultural-strategy](http://www.london.gov.uk/get-involved/consultations/current-consultations/cultural-strategy) | April 2004 | Consultation draft June 2010. Consultation closed September 2010 | | Violence Against Women (The Way Forward) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/crime-community-safety/tackling-priority-crimes/violence-against-women](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/crime-community-safety/tackling-priority-crimes/violence-against-women) | April 2009 | March 2010 | | Economic Development | [http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/business-and-economy/eds](http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/business-and-economy/eds) | May 2010 | | | Strategy | Web link | First published | Updated | |--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------| | Food | http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/urban-space/growing-food | | | | Health Inequalities | http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/health/health-inequalities-strategy | | April 2010 | | Housing | http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/london-housing-strategy | | February 2010 | | London Tourism Action Plan | | May 2006 | August 2009 | | Municipal Waste | http://www.london.gov.uk/consultation/waste-strategy | August 2003 | Draft published October 2010. Consultation closed January 2011 | | Older People | http://www.london.gov.uk/older-people | | | | Spatial Development (The London Plan) | http://www.london.gov.uk/shaping-london/london-plan/ | February 2004 | Draft replacement plan published October 2009. Expected publication summer / autumn 2011 | | Transport | http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayors-transport-strategy | July 2001 | May 2010 | | Water | http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/vision-strategy/water | | Draft published August 2009 |

For the latest updates visit [www.london.gov.uk](http://www.london.gov.uk). Please note that the Mayor’s website is under continuous review which may lead to web pages moving or being replaced. The links provided were functional as at the end of January 2011.

**Progress on Major Developments**

Appendix 3 contains a summary of progress on implementing development for each of the Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification identified in the London Plan. Summary of Mayoral Planning Activity

Review of the London Plan

Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended), the Mayor is required to publish and keep up-to-date a spatial development strategy (SDS), widely known as the London Plan. This is intended to set out the Mayor’s strategy for the development of London, and to bring together the spatial aspects of all his other strategies. The first iteration of the London Plan was published in 2004; the most recent version is that published consolidated with alterations in February 2008.

In December 2008, the Mayor announced his intention to carry out a full review of the Plan, with a view to bringing forward a new (or “replacement”) version before the end of 2011. Initial proposals for a new Plan were published for consultation in April 2009, with a draft replacement Plan being issued in October of the same year. An examination in public was held over nine weeks between June and December 2010, and at time of writing the report of the Panel that conducted the examination is awaited. It is intended that the new London Plan will be published in the autumn of 2011.

The Mayor is currently considering the arrangements for implementing the London Plan. These are likely to take the form of an Implementation Framework of documents and initiatives, including a streamlined suite of supplementary guidance, an Implementation Report outlining activities to implement London Plan policies and support infrastructure planning across the capital, and this Annual Monitoring Report. Further details of this new approach will be set out in the next AMR.

Planning decisions

The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 came into force on 6 April 2008 and requires local planning authorities to refer strategic planning applications to the Mayor (the Order defines what is strategic). The Order requires the Mayor to provide a statement of whether he considers the application to conform to the London Plan and the reasons for this conclusion within six weeks of receipt of the referral. The Mayor has the power to direct a borough to refuse planning permission but he does not have the power to direct a borough to grant planning permission. On certain applications, which meet criteria set out in the Order, he can however direct a borough that he will become the local planning authority and determine the application himself.

The Order applies to applications submitted on or after the 6 April 2008. The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 still applies to those applications submitted before the 6 April 2008.

Following discussions between the Mayor and London boroughs, the Government has indicated its intention to amend the Mayor of London Order to increase the threshold for referral of applications, so that he only sees those proposing more than 400 units of new housing. It is anticipated that this change will be made during the summer of 2011.

In spite of the continuing uncertainty brought on from the economic crisis, 2010 has seen a slight increase in the number of applications referred to the Mayor. The increase from 240 in 2009, to 258 in 2010 represents a rise of 7.5%. However, there still remained a 12% decrease in referable applications in 2010 when compared to the average amount of referrals in the previous 4 years. This decline in activity is not uniform across London, with the Inner London boroughs displaying a 19% decrease in referable cases (in spite of such boroughs as Lambeth showing a 40% increase in activity to the 4 year average) whilst the Outer London boroughs show a very mild decrease in referable cases of just 0.75%. The City of London has seen a dramatic increase from 1 referable case in 2009 to 5 in 2010; however it still remains well below the high of 20 in 2007.

This year also saw the Mayor use his “call-in” powers in a further two planning applications. The Mayor granted permission for the Southall Gas Works application in Hayes following Ealing and Hillingdon’s decision to refuse the application and he also issued a notice to the London Borough of Merton stating that he would act as the local planning authority for the purposes of determining the SITA Recycling application on Benedict Road.

Table 5 Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor

| Borough | 2000 - 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | Total 2006-2010 | |--------------------------|-------------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------| | City of London | 72 | 16 | 20 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 119 | | Barking & Dagenham | 36 | 4 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 71 | | Barnet | 19 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 6 | 56 | | Bexley | 21 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 54 | | Brent | 31 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 63 | | Bromley | 54 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 79 | | Camden | 15 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 44 | | Croydon | 49 | 6 | 13 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 92 | | Ealing | 51 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 81 | | Enfield | 32 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 52 | | Greenwich | 52 | 12 | 28 | 13 | 5 | 11 | 121 | | Hackney | 38 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 13 | 7 | 82 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 39 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 75 | | Haringey | 13 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 28 | | Harrow | 12 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 42 | | Havering | 38 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 3 | 68 | | Hillingdon | 72 | 12 | 15 | 23 | 15 | 9 | 146 | | Hounslow | 35 | 7 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 10 | 77 | | Islington | 21 | 5 | 13 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 62 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 10 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 31 | | Kingston upon Thames | 19 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 31 | | Lambeth | 44 | 13 | 7 | 13 | 4 | 13 | 94 | | Lewisham | 26 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 56 | | Merton | 32 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 6 | 60 | | Newham | 74 | 19 | 28 | 20 | 16 | 30 | 187 | | Redbridge | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 20 | | Richmond upon Thames | 24 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 39 | | Southwark | 82 | 21 | 13 | 20 | 15 | 12 | 163 | | Sutton | 11 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 37 | | Tower Hamlets | 129 | 36 | 41 | 47 | 30 | 23 | 306 | | Waltham Forest | 15 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 23 | | Wandsworth | 34 | 14 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 82 | | Westminster | 59 | 15 | 33 | 26 | 11 | 18 | 162 | | **Totals** | **1,269** | **261** | **341** | **334** | **240** | **258** | **1,430** |

Source GLA Planning Decisions Unit Development Plan Documents

Following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 all local authorities are required to produce a local development framework. The local development framework is a portfolio of local development documents, comprising development plan documents and supplementary planning documents.

Borough local development schemes (LDS) are the local planning authority’s work plan for the production of local development documents (LDD) that will collectively form the Local Development Framework for each of the boroughs. Every London borough produced an original LDS by April 2005. These have been revised at different periods since.

In June 2008 a new power for the Mayor over borough LDSs was introduced. The GLA Act 2007 amended the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act so that the Mayor may direct that amendments be made to the LDS if it is necessary to ensure that key policies of the London Plan are reflected in the LDD work programme. The Mayor may also direct a local planning authority to prepare a revision to their LDS. In 2010, the Mayor approved 15 LDSs and did not direct amendments to any of them.

All London borough LDDs are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Boroughs are required to consult the Mayor at each statutory stage in the process of preparation of development plan documents. They are also required to request the Mayor’s opinion on general conformity at the same time as the document is submitted to the Secretary of State for examination.

Boroughs are also required to consult the Mayor on supplementary planning documents (SPD) to the extent that the council thinks he is affected by the document. The Mayor has indicated to boroughs the types of documents he wishes to be consulted on (affordable housing, transport, planning obligations, sustainable development, environmental protection and climate change, waste and planning briefs for sites which could result in referable applications). During 2010 the Mayor responded to five SPD consultations.

In order to achieve general conformity of LDDs the Mayor has worked proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of documents and meetings to discuss the Mayor’s response to consultation. Appendix 5 summarizes all the development plan related consultations that the Mayor has responded to in 2010.

In 2010 the Mayor responded to 78 consultations on development plan documents (DPDs). GLA officers have also responded to informal drafts of documents in a number of instances. The Mayor gave an opinion of general conformity on 27 DPDs at the pre-submission or submission stages. Most of these DPDs were originally found not to be in general conformity with the London Plan. However ongoing negotiations before and during examinations in public (EIPs) resulted in a number of changes to bring the documents into general conformity with the London Plan. Officers attended six EIPs: Hackney, Kensington and Chelsea, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Westminster and Wandsworth.

Table 6 shows progress by London boroughs in preparing their core strategy development plan documents.

### Table 6 Progress with Core Strategy Development Plan Documents

| Core Strategy Stage | No. of boroughs | Borough | |----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------------------------------| | Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published | 1 | Bromley | | Have published Core Strategy Issues and Options | 2 | Hounslow Newham | | Have published Core Strategy Preferred Options | 4 | Waltham Forest Croydon Hillingdon Kingston upon Thames | | Core Strategy pre submission or Submission to Secretary of State | 15 | Hammersmith & Fulham City of London Westminster Lewisham Merton Haringey Harrow Bexley Ealing Greenwich Brent Lambeth Islington Southwark Barnet | | Core strategy adopted | 11 | Kensington & Chelsea Barking and Dagenham Wandsworth Tower Hamlets Camden Enfield Havering Redbridge Richmond Sutton Hackney |

**Note:** Many boroughs are progressing other DPDs at the same time as their Core Strategy or have adopted DPDs or site-specific Area Action Plans in advance of it, for example Kingston upon Thames’s Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan and Hounslow’s Employment DPD.

### London Development Database

The London Development Database is the key data source for monitoring planning approvals and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 local planning authorities and the GLA provides a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The database monitors each planning permission from approval through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to manipulate data in order to produce various specific reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis. The value of the LDD is dependent on work by the boroughs to provide the required data, and the Mayor would take this opportunity to thank all of those concerned in supporting this invaluable resource.

Minor revisions were made to the LDD during 2010. From 1st April 2010 the following changes came into effect:

- Recording the loss or gain of pitches for gypsies and travellers became a mandatory requirement.
- Apart-hotels and serviced apartments were given their own category separate from other non self-contained accommodation.
- The new C4 use class was added following the Government’s decision to introduce a new use class for Houses in Multiple Occupation of between 3 to 6 bedrooms.

2011 will see the introduction of the following:

- A requirement to record the Code for Sustainable Homes level of proposed new residential dwellings
- Fields for all parking spaces, including bicycles
- A requirement to record whether proposed units are to be built on Greenfield or garden land on a unit by unit basis

Note: Some boroughs use the London Development Database as a data source for their AMRs, and all are expected to compare the data they publish with the data they have entered onto LDD. This should ensure a level of consistency between data on housing, open space etc which is published in both the borough and GLA AMRs. However some differences in the figures do occur. This can in part be attributed to LDD being a live system which is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the way completions are allocated to particular years which may cause discrepancies between borough and GLA AMR data.

**London Planning Awards 2010/11**

The Mayor, London First, the Royal Town Planning Institute and London Councils jointly organise the privately-sponsored annual London Planning Awards to showcase and celebrate good planning practice in the capital. The 2009/10 London Planning Awards Ceremony was held on 29 March 2010 in City Hall - full details of shortlisted, commended and winning schemes are given in a PDF document which can be found at http://www.londonfirst.co.uk/documents/LPA10_brochure.pdf.

The 2010/11 Awards Ceremony was held on 20 January 2011, and full details of the winning and commended entries are given in Table 7. | 1: Best Built Project sponsored by CB Richard Ellis | |---| | **WINNER** for its bold and successful architectural intervention, its welcoming prospect and the real sense of town centre renewal it has engendered: | | Enfield Town Library submitted by the London Borough of Enfield with Shepheard Epstein Hunter Architects. | | A dramatic yet sensitive and flexible modern addition to Enfield’s one hundred year old Carnegie Library, the building has been reoriented to face a much improved green and to attract a broader and younger readership. This library has been turned around – in both senses of the word. | | **COMMENDATION** for its high degree of community involvement, its profound local regeneration impact, and – not least – its subtle remodelling of public spaces: | | ECI Public Realm Improvements submitted by the London Borough of Islington, with EC1 New Deals for Communities, and Homes for Islington. | | Broad in scope and vision, this comprehensive approach to public realm enhancement in Islington’s city fringe displays a careful attention to detail and demonstrates the value of public engagement, buy-in and continued involvement. |

| 2: Best Built Project – Community Scale sponsored by Land Securities | |---| | **WINNER** for its iconic design, its responses to difficult planning issues, and its life-enhancing spirit: | | Clapham Manor Primary School submitted by dRMM Architects. | | This polychromatic freestanding addition cleverly marries four new stories to the school’s existing three, brings full accessibility throughout, and provides light and airy – and much-loved – extra space. The design was carefully crafted in consultation with staff, pupils and local residents, and the resultant reorientation of the school has dramatically improved security and safety in the neighbouring public realm. | | **COMMENDATION** for its community involvement, its imagination, and its Narnia-like qualities: | | The Barn & Eco Garden at the Eastern Curve, Dalston submitted by J & L Gibbons, with MUF Architecture/art, Nicholas Henniger (EXYZ), Martin Stockley Associates, Appleyards DWB, Objectif, Design for London and the LDA, Hackney Council and the Eastern Curve Steering Group. | | The pride and passion of local activists is on full display in this magical space squeezed behind clusters of town centre buildings on rescued backland. With an ambitious programme of educational, cultural and horticultural activities, and strong local support, this new open space has added an extra dimension to Dalston. |

| 3: Best Conceptual Project sponsored by Berwin Leighton Paisner | |---| | **WINNER** for its remarkable imagination and ambition: | | London River Park submitted by Gensler. | | From left field comes an ingenious proposal to link the main historic attractions along the north shore of the Thames via a fully accessible, floating river walk. Timed for completion in 2012, five linked temporary pavilions will celebrate the ‘Best of British’, and leave a lasting legacy of new mooring facilities, ferry terminals and an open air swimming pool. | 4: Best New Place to Live

**WINNER for its inspirational and well thought out responses to the challenges of elderly living:**

**Ewart House & Abigail House Extra Care Housing at Richards Close, Harrow submitted by Harrow Churches Housing Association and Octavia Housing.**

This splendid care and support scheme for frail older people mixes independent living – each flat has its own front door – with communal facilities, and provides assistance on call 24 hours a day. Including extra care and wheelchair accessible accommodation, this well-crafted development scores highly on measures of environmental sustainability.

**COMMENDATION for its real place-making achievements, and its sense of community:**

**Beaufort Park submitted by St George Central London.**

This substantial new place in outer London ticks all the boxes. Carefully put together with many partners; its homes – 42% affordable and 97% lifetime, no less; open spaces; and the shops, businesses and community facilities in its new neighbourhood centre have transformed this corner of Barnet.

5: Best New Public Space sponsored by Hogan Lovells

**WINNER for its high degree of community involvement, its attention to detail and its elegant design:**

**Bermondsey Square submitted by East architecture, landscape, urban design.**

Developed in partnership with users and neighbours, this precise design is carefully detailed. The revitalised square integrates successfully public and privately managed space and provides a flexible arena for everyday activities and special events, whilst continuing to host Bermondsey’s historic weekly antiques market.

**COMMENDATION For successfully blending of a multitude of themes, and for the joyful integration of art, craft and leisure:**

**Waterside Gardens, Crayford submitted by the London Borough of Bexley.**

Drawing freely from local history and heritage for design inspiration, this expertly conceived and implemented local park provides a delightful oasis in the centre of Crayford. The opportunity to improve the River Cray – which flows along the edge of the Gardens – has been well taken.

6: Best Built Project Five Years On sponsored by GVA

**WINNER The airport may have been its focus, but its head has not been in the clouds. For its overwhelming regenerative impact:**

**DLR London City Airport Extension submitted by Docklands Light Railway.**

A daring addition to the DLR, this extension has for the first time brought rail access to London City Airport, solving many complex planning problems on the way and opening up numerous development opportunities. It has also massively increased accessibility to the City and the West End through its link to Woolwich Arsenal south of the river, and has – year on year – seen ridership grow significantly ahead of projections.

7: Best Historic Building Management sponsored by English Heritage

**WINNER for its sensitive remodelling of the public realm fronting a national icon:**

**St Paul’s Church Yard submitted by the City of London, with Townshend Landscape Architects, ARUP and Project Centre.**

Following an extensive programme of public consultation, the public realm fronting St Paul’s has been thoughtfully reworked to manage the huge increases in visitors following the opening of the Millennium Bridge. Featuring formal and informal, and temporary and permanent elements – including an historic drinking fountain rescued from Guildhall, its waters rendered potable – this impressive treatment is a great success. Entry descriptions and award citations taken from the Mayor’s and Sir Simon Milton’s speeches at the London Planning Awards Ceremony held on 20 January 2011 in City Hall.

8: Mayor’s Award for Planning Excellence

WINNER As Mayor, I’m often expected to walk on water. This scheme brings it one step nearer for everyone! For its sheer simplicity, and dazzling audacity:

London River Park submitted by Gensler.

(see 3: Best Conceptual Project for citation and description of entry)

COMMENDATION a landmark in the making – a joyful response to tricky planning constraints:

Clapham Manor Primary School submitted by dRMM Architects.

(see 2: Best Built Project – Community Scale for citation and description of entry)

Update on inter regional issues

Established in 2000, the Advisory Forum on Regional Planning for London, the South East and East of England (the Inter Regional Forum) met regularly to consider significant cross-regional planning issues, with the Chair and Secretariat function rotating between the three regions every two years. Against the backdrop of fundamental changes to the arrangements for regional planning outside London3, regional leaders met in June 2010 to consider a way forward. The Inter Regional Forum is currently in abeyance pending decisions about the future arrangements to be made in the East and South East regions, with cross-boundary work proceeding at officer level as and when required. The position will be reviewed once governance arrangements in the neighbouring regions have been resolved.

Outer London Commission

The Outer London Commission’s final report was published in May 2010.

http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/

Olympic and Paralympic Games

The development of the Olympic Park and venues continues apace (see the Olympic Delivery Authority website for more details: http://www.london2012.com/making-it-happen/). The main venues are nearing completion (the Velodrome was completed as this report went to press) and much of the infrastructure needed for the Games is now in place. The Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) has launched its 25-year vision and legacy masterplan for the Olympic Park and the surrounding area, and work is underway to procure operators for the venues. Work has started on the Mayor’s Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance (see draft replacement London Plan policy 2.4), and the Mayor of London has begun consultation on his proposals to re-form the OPLC into a Mayoral Development Corporation, as defined in the Government’s Localism Bill, that would drive forward regeneration and development in the area (for more details: www.london.gov.uk/mdcconsultation)

The Mayor is also working in partnership with government and the boroughs to maximise the wider socio-economic benefits across London from the transport investment associated with the Games, and to capture the volunteering, employment, skills and business development legacies. He remains

3 The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) was dissolved on 31 March 2009, its functions transferring to the South East England Partnership Board (SEEPB). SEEPB closed on 30 July 2010. The East of England regional Assembly (EERA) was dissolved on 31 March 2010. committed to the range of work being undertaken with the six east London Host Boroughs to achieve ‘convergence’ between those boroughs and the rest of London.

Looking to the Future

This year saw a new Coalition Government with ambitious policies to change the planning system to ensure it is less top-down and more “localist”. The Government’s Localism Bill takes those policies forward, abolishing regional spatial strategies, and putting in place provision for neighbourhood planning.

The Mayor has anticipated these changes in his draft replacement London Plan, with the aim of making it – and the various documents and workstreams to support its implementation – a “resource for localism”, providing a clear Londonwide perspective and direction to inform and support planning at more local levels, and providing information and practical advice. More details about this will be given in next year’s AMR.

The economic situation continues to be a challenge for all those involved in planning, both in supporting development through a difficult time for the sector, and in finding ways of ensuring delivery of the infrastructure a growing city needs at a time when public resources are short. The planning system will have a key role to play in this – an example is the Mayor’s proposals for a Community Infrastructure Levy to help fund Crossrail. Appendix 1 – Key Performance Indicators

The London Plan sets out 28 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). These are intended to enable monitoring of the overall thrust of the London Plan’s suite of policies rather than to identify the impact of single policies individually. The Key Performance Indicators are reported below under the most relevant of the London Plan’s six objectives.

Objective 1 - To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces

Key Performance Indicator 1 Increasing the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land

Target Maintain at least 96% of new residential development to be on previously developed land.

AMR 7 shows that in 2009/10 London continued to exceed the national target (60%) for building on brownfield land by a substantial margin, and with 99% of completions and 97% of approvals on brownfield land, to achieve the Mayor’s more demanding target of accommodating at least 96% of residential development on previously developed land.

Table 8 Percentage of residential development on previously developed land within London 2000 – 2009/10

| Year | % of development approved on previously developed land within London | % of development completed on previously developed land within London | |--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | | By site area | By no. of units | By site area | By no. of units | | 2000 | 89% ODPM | | | | | 2001 | 90% ODPM | | | | | 2002 | 90% ODPM | | | | | 2003 | 94% ODPM | | | | | 2004/5 | 97.3% | 98.1% | | | | 2005/6 | 96.7% | 97.5% | | | | 2006/7 | 97.7% | 98.5% | 96.5% | 97.2% | | 2007/8 | 96.6% | 97.1% | 94.8% | 96.5% | | 2008/9 | 96.6% | 97.8% | 97.5% | 98.5% | | 2009/10| 97% | 96.7% | 97.7% | 98.7% |

Sources: 2000-2003 – ODPM – all completed development using calendar years. 2004 onwards - London Development Database using financial years.

Note: The percentage is calculated using residential planning permissions granted / completed during the financial year. Completions are allocated to the year in which the final part of the scheme is finished. Only permissions for which a site area can be calculated are included. Details and Reserved Matters permissions are not included in Approvals but are included in Completions. As noted in AMR 6, London Development Database (LDD) figures from previous years have been reviewed for AMR 7 using the new calculation method which takes into account changes in the way that non-residential elements of residential schemes are excluded from the final calculations. | Borough Name | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | |------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | | % total units approved | % total units completed | % total units approved | % total units completed | % total units approved | % total units completed | % total units approved | % total units completed | | Barking and Dagenham | 99.2 | 49.3 | 98.8 | 79.1 | 75.8 | 100.0 | 75.9 | 100.0 | | Barnet | 99.4 | 98.3 | 86.2 | 94.8 | 98.5 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 100.0 | | Bexley | 100.0 | 90.7 | 100.0 | 74.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 43.5 | 94.0 | | Brent | 98.1 | 98.3 | 99.1 | 100.0 | 96.5 | 98.7 | 98.2 | 95.1 | | Bromley | 91.4 | 97.2 | 67.8 | 100.0 | 98.3 | 98.1 | 77.7 | 93.5 | | Camden | 99.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | City of London | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Croydon | 99.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.1 | 95.6 | 100.0 | 99.2 | 99.9 | | Ealing | 97.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 97.7 | 99.5 | 100.0 | | Enfield | 96.4 | 100.0 | 91.3 | 96.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 96.1 | 100.0 | | Greenwich | 100.0 | 100.0 | 98.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 97.5 | 91.8 | 100.0 | | Hackney | 100.0 | 89.0 | 99.9 | 100.0 | 97.8 | 100.0 | 97.6 | 99.9 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 98.7 | 99.1 | 100.0 | | Haringey | 98.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 98.8 | 99.9 | 100.0 | | Harrow | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 97.5 | | Havering | 99.9 | 97.7 | 75.8 | 97.9 | 99.0 | 100.0 | 99.7 | 100.0 | | Hillingdon | 87.4 | 100.0 | 92.6 | 100.0 | 94.7 | 84.1 | 98.9 | 96.2 | | Hounslow | 99.9 | 100.0 | 93.0 | 71.5 | 99.9 | 99.1 | 97.9 | 100.0 | | Islington | 99.7 | 98.0 | 95.2 | 99.2 | 90.6 | 99.5 | 96.3 | 100.0 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 99.7 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 | 99.6 | 100.0 | 88.9 | 99.5 | | Kingston upon Thames | 100.0 | 95.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Lambeth | 99.9 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 | 99.0 | | Lewisham | 97.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 95.8 | 100.0 | 99.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 | | Merton | 100.0 | 100.0 | 92.4 | 100.0 | 92.0 | 100.0 | 91.3 | 99.6 | | Newham | 99.6 | 100.0 | 99.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.7 | 97.2 | | Redbridge | 90.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 73.9 | 100.0 | 84.3 | | Richmond upon Thames | 100.0 | 99.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 98.2 | 100.0 | | Southwark | 99.8 | 100.0 | 93.8 | 100.0 | 98.8 | 100.0 | 92.0 | 99.5 | | Sutton | 92.6 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 72.6 | 98.4 | 100.0 | 96.7 | 100.0 | | Tower Hamlets | 97.7 | 95.3 | 99.6 | 94.5 | 99.8 | 97.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Waltham Forest | 100.0 | 96.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Wandsworth | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 | 98.9 | 100.0 | | Westminster | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | **London** | **98.5**| **97.2**| **97.1**| **96.5**| **97.8**| **98.5** | **96.7**| **98.7** |

Source: London Development Database Key Performance Indicator 2 Increasing the density of residential development

Target Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and SRQ matrix

Table 10 and Table 11 compare the residential density of each scheme against the PTAL score (for example, see Map 2 for the 2009/10 map, although contemporary maps were used for the calculations) and the setting (based on the Character Areas map published on page 94 of the Strategic Land Availability Assessment) for each development to test whether the development is within, above or below the relevant density range. Preparation of the Draft Replacement London Plan provided an opportunity to present this information on a consistent basis in this AMR. Table 12 shows the previously published figures.

It should be noted that Interim Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on implementation of density policy in the 2008 London Plan was published in April 2010, i.e. after collection of the data for 2009/10 presented here. It is intended that this SPG should support achievement of the target for 95% of development to comply with the Plan’s density policy.

Table 10 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – all schemes

| Financial Year | % of units approvals | |----------------|----------------------| | | Within Range | Above range | Below Range | | 2004/05 | 31% | 62% | 8% | | 2005/06 | 28% | 65% | 7% | | 2006/07 | 36% | 60% | 4% | | 2007/08 | 40% | 55% | 5% | | 2008/09 | 41% | 53% | 7% | | 2009/10 | 39% | 56% | 6% |

Table 11 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – schemes of 15 units or more

| Financial Year | % of units approvals schemes 15+ | |----------------|----------------------------------| | | Within Range | Above range | Below Range | | 2006/07 | 30% | 69% | 1% | | 2007/08 | 36% | 63% | 2% | | 2008/09 | 36% | 62% | 2% | | 2009/10 | 35% | 63% | 2% |

Source: London Development Database. Note: Annual figures may not total 100% due to rounding. Table 12 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – previously published data from AMR 6

| Financial Year | % of units approvals | |----------------------|----------------------| | | Within Range | Above range | Below Range | | 2004/05 | 31% | 62% | 8% | | 2005/06 | 28% | 65% | 7% | | 2006/7 over 15 units | 39% | 58% | 3% | | 2006/7 all units | 50% | 32% | 18% | | 2007/8 over 15 units | 36% | 63% | 2% | | 2007/8 all units | 40% | 55% | 5% | | 2008/9 over 15 units | 26% | 73% | 1% | | 2008/9 all units | 33% | 64% | 4% | Table 13 Density of residential development approved by borough 2004/05 to 2009/10

| Borough | 2004/5 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | |--------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------| | Barking & Dagenham | 102 | 122 | 165 | 146 | 80 | 116 | | Barnet | 59 | 134 | 78 | 82 | 113 | 101 | | Bexley | 68 | 58 | 87 | 51 | 99 | 83 | | Brent | 257 | 168 | 199 | 149 | 133 | 174 | | Bromley | 41 | 34 | 44 | 49 | 36 | 48 | | Camden | 124 | 115 | 227 | 113 | 136 | 138 | | City of London | 577 | 368 | 525 | 1263 | 330 | 213 | | Croydon | 69 | 90 | 115 | 106 | 131 | 97 | | Ealing | 130 | 180 | 121 | 113 | 160 | 152 | | Enfield | 72 | 84 | 52 | 82 | 66 | 71 | | Greenwich | 157 | 115 | 161 | 249 | 215 | 147 | | Hackney | 233 | 236 | 277 | 239 | 200 | 279 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 128 | 219 | 160 | 227 | 187 | 300 | | Haringey | 158 | 117 | 136 | 173 | 95 | 107 | | Harrow | 84 | 71 | 111 | 90 | 62 | 82 | | Havering | 57 | 95 | 60 | 41 | 55 | 99 | | Hillingdon | 53 | 41 | 85 | 68 | 91 | 36 | | Hounslow | 86 | 117 | 156 | 95 | 159 | 61 | | Islington | 205 | 223 | 319 | 256 | 244 | 272 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 153 | 209 | 170 | 164 | 138 | 193 | | Kingston upon Thames | 95 | 102 | 45 | 60 | 77 | 64 | | Lambeth | 134 | 185 | 203 | 214 | 129 | 186 | | Lewisham | 125 | 170 | 143 | 173 | 168 | 232 | | Merton | 81 | 101 | 64 | 95 | 74 | 69 | | Newham | 237 | 261 | 269 | 347 | 368 | 312 | | Redbridge | 99 | 138 | 151 | 116 | 87 | 373 | | Richmond upon Thames | 68 | 91 | 83 | 60 | 58 | 47 | | Southwark | 256 | 277 | 285 | 277 | 338 | 230 | | Sutton | 83 | 63 | 70 | 117 | 92 | 59 | | Tower Hamlets | 275 | 416 | 345 | 447 | 311 | 384 | | Waltham Forest | 131 | 123 | 130 | 129 | 119 | 121 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 148 | 156 | 151 | 171 | 143 | | Westminster | 269 | 283 | 160 | 253 | 153 | 199 | | **London** | **130**| **134**| **129**| **151**| **138**| **148** |

Source: London Development Database Table 14 Density of Residential development completed by borough 2006/07 to 2009/10

| Borough | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | |--------------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------| | Barking & Dagenham | 95 | 125 | 139 | 233 | | Barnet | 66 | 62 | 108 | 65 | | Bexley | 44 | 48 | 75 | 75 | | Brent | 113 | 106 | 144 | 130 | | Bromley | 54 | 55 | 35 | 37 | | Camden | 106 | 141 | 232 | 196 | | City of London | 454 | 558 | 505 | 544 | | Croydon | 78 | 72 | 98 | 104 | | Ealing | 195 | 136 | 159 | 109 | | Enfield | 75 | 92 | 68 | 61 | | Greenwich | 170 | 139 | 122 | 113 | | Hackney | 266 | 183 | 234 | 254 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 116 | 143 | 197 | 208 | | Haringey | 175 | 138 | 163 | 106 | | Harrow | 93 | 79 | 71 | 100 | | Havering | 55 | 63 | 71 | 95 | | Hillingdon | 49 | 54 | 60 | 94 | | Hounslow | 120 | 102 | 120 | 184 | | Islington | 225 | 235 | 285 | 200 | | Ken & Chelsea | 135 | 165 | 173 | 128 | | Kingston upon Thames | 86 | 115 | 50 | 46 | | Lambeth | 141 | 163 | 172 | 155 | | Lewisham | 109 | 124 | 136 | 188 | | Merton | 92 | 95 | 46 | 68 | | Newham | 163 | 292 | 267 | 240 | | Redbridge | 124 | 122 | 110 | 100 | | Richmond upon Thames | 74 | 58 | 82 | 64 | | Southwark | 264 | 253 | 224 | 224 | | Sutton | 60 | 53 | 89 | 66 | | Tower Hamlets | 248 | 298 | 314 | 377 | | Waltham Forest | 139 | 126 | 132 | 117 | | Wandsworth | 169 | 135 | 172 | 182 | | Westminster | 259 | 205 | 261 | 257 | | **London** | **123**| **117**| **128**| **139** |

Source: London Development Database

**Note:** Table 10 to Table 14 are based on all residential approvals / completions for which a site area could be calculated. Density is calculated by dividing the total number of units by the total residential site area. LDD started collecting data on schemes with less than 10 dwellings in 2000. Due to the time lag between approval and completion, density figures are not calculated for years prior to 2006/07. Key Performance Indicator 3 Protection of open space

Target No net loss of open space designated for protection in UDPs due to new development.

Table 15 shows all losses and gains of open space recorded on the London Development Database. It is not restricted to open space designated in borough plans. As we do not currently monitor the designation of new open space, looking at changes in all open space serves as a proxy measure of this indicator.

The definition of open space used is based on the advice in PPG17. The LDD excludes all private residential gardens as well as other areas within the curtilage of previously developed sites. The exceptions are outdoor sports facilities which may be within school grounds and spaces designated for conservation or protection, which are included even though they may be within the curtilage of a developed site. A new category of “Brownfield Land” has been added to the database to allow for previously developed land within areas designated for conservation or protection to be recorded. Brownfield land will not be recorded as a loss of open space in Table 15.

Table 15 Changes in open space due to new development or change of use 2009/10

| Borough | Approvals Existing open space (ha) | Proposed open space (ha)\* | Net loss or gain (ha) | Completions Existing open space (ha) | Proposed open space (ha)\* | Net loss or gain (ha) | |-------------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 8.596 | 7.572 | -1.024 | 0.000 | 0.160 | 0.160 | | Barnet | 0.143 | 0.274 | 0.131 | 0.169 | 0.000 | -0.169 | | Bexley | 1.382 | 0.000 | -1.382 | 0.931 | 0.076 | -0.855 | | Brent | 4.142 | 1.011 | -3.131 | 0.775 | 0.103 | -0.672 | | Bromley | 1.870 | 0.067 | -1.803 | 0.779 | 0.000 | -0.779 | | Camden | 0.200 | 0.551 | 0.351 | 0.020 | 0.351 | 0.331 | | City of London | 0.000 | 0.321 | 0.321 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Croydon | 0.486 | 0.000 | -0.486 | 0.047 | 0.000 | -0.047 | | Ealing | 0.204 | 0.443 | 0.239 | 0.725 | 0.000 | -0.725 | | Enfield | 0.516 | 0.146 | -0.370 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Greenwich | 8.447 | 6.753 | -1.694 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Hackney | 7.708 | 0.750 | -6.958 | 0.012 | 0.490 | 0.478 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0.167 | 0.102 | -0.065 | 0.026 | 0.026 | 0.000 | | Haringey | 0.045 | 0.000 | -0.045 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Harrow | 23.255 | 22.730 | -0.525 | 2.853 | 0.000 | -2.853 | | Havering | 0.725 | 0.000 | -0.725 | 0.160 | 0.000 | -0.160 | | Hillingdon | 3.001 | 2.740 | -0.261 | 1.495 | 0.000 | -1.495 | | Hounslow | 0.125 | 0.000 | -0.125 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Islington | 3.990 | 3.620 | -0.370 | 0.452 | 0.403 | -0.049 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1.107 | 1.107 | 0.000 | 0.011 | 0.000 | -0.011 | | Kingston upon Thames | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Borough | Existing open space (ha) | Proposed open space (ha)\* | Net loss or gain (ha) | Existing open space (ha) | Proposed open space (ha)\* | Net loss or gain (ha) | |-------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------| | Lambeth | 0.607 | 0.433 | -0.174 | 0.086 | 0.080 | -0.006 | | Lewisham | 0.119 | 0.345 | 0.226 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Merton | 1.990 | 0.450 | -1.540 | 0.012 | 0.000 | -0.012 | | Newham | 1.483 | 5.237 | 3.754 | 1.196 | 0.085 | -1.111 | | Redbridge | 0.423 | 0.000 | -0.423 | 3.542 | 0.000 | -3.542 | | Richmond upon Thames | 1.109 | 0.770 | -0.339 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Southwark | 0.734 | 0.334 | -0.400 | 0.160 | 0.612 | 0.452 | | Sutton | 2.411 | 0.000 | -2.411 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Tower Hamlets | 0.013 | 5.194 | 5.181 | 0.006 | 0.000 | -0.006 | | Waltham Forest | 2.891 | 2.430 | -0.461 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Wandsworth | 0.288 | 0.180 | -0.108 | 0.000 | 0.077 | 0.077 | | Westminster | 0.000 | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.000 | 0.010 | 0.010 | | **London Total** | **78.177** | **63.570** | **-14.607** | **13.457** | **2.473** | **-10.984** |

Source: London Development Database. All figures are in hectares.

The net loss of open space of just under 15 hectares is down on the 18 hectares recorded in 2008/09. The largest net loss of open space is in Hackney, the majority of which is within the Olympic Park and will be compensated for by other improvements across the site as a whole. Next is Brent where the biggest single loss is of sports pitches to make way for the new Ark Academy in Wembley. Part of the site will be retained for all-weather sports facilities and a new natural habitat area. The creation of a new cancer research centre within the grounds of the Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton will see the loss of 2 hectares of land that is within a Site of Local Importance for conservation but is not protected by the designations covered in Table 16.

Two boroughs have approved large net gains of open space. Newham has approved several small new open spaces as well as 4 hectares of parkland on the former gasworks site in Beckton. The biggest net gain is in Tower Hamlets. This includes 1.6 hectares of new civic space at a former print works in Wapping and 2 hectares of open spaces in the Wood Wharf scheme on the Isle of Dogs.

Table 16 shows the losses of protected open space as an alternative proxy measure. Straight swaps of one open space type to another within a single permission are excluded where it can be assumed that the quality of the open space will be preserved or enhanced. The types of open space protection recorded on LDD are Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Local Open Spaces. These are different from the designations for nature conservation recorded in Table 38. | Borough | Green Belt (ha) | Metropolitan Open Land (ha) | Local Open Spaces and Other (ha) | Grand Total (ha) | |-------------------------|----------------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------|-----------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Barnet | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Bexley | 0.000 | 0.182 | 0.000 | 0.182 | | Brent | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.374 | 0.374 | | Bromley | 0.067 | 0.784 | 0.538 | 1.389 | | Camden | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | City of London | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Croydon | 0.144 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.144 | | Ealing | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Enfield | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.250 | 0.250 | | Greenwich | 0.000 | 3.750 | 0.806 | 4.556 | | Hackney | 0.000 | 6.828 | 0.000 | 6.828 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.065 | 0.065 | | Haringey | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Harrow | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Havering | 0.000 | 0.350 | 0.000 | 0.350 | | Hillingdon | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Hounslow | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.125 | 0.125 | | Islington | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Kingston upon Thames | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Lambeth | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Lewisham | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Merton | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.150 | 1.150 | | Newham | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.182 | 0.182 | | Redbridge | 0.423 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.423 | | Richmond upon Thames | 0.000 | 0.293 | 0.000 | 0.293 | | Southwark | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.043 | 0.043 | | Sutton | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Tower Hamlets | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Waltham Forest | 0.000 | 0.461 | 0.000 | 0.461 | | Wandsworth | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Westminster | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | **London Total 2009/10** | **0.634** | **12.648** | **3.571** | **16.853** | | **London Total 2008/09** | **7.459** | **0.882** | **13.646** | **21.987** |

Source: London Development Database. All figures are in hectares.

The corresponding table in AMR6 contained all changes in protected open space recorded on LDD. For AMR7 it has been decided to remove schemes where both existing and proposed open space are equal. This helps to avoid the artificial inflation of losses where re-provision can clearly be demonstrated. The revised London Total figures for 2008/09 are shown in the final row of Table 16 to allow for an accurate comparison.

The total loss of less than 17 hectares of protected open space in permissions granted during 2009/10 is down on the 22 hectares during 2008/09. The largest single permission in the green belt is for the extension of Goodmayes Hospital in Redbridge. The new building is adjacent to existing buildings and is within the bounds of the site of the existing hospital.

The losses of MOL in Hackney are in the Olympic Park area and will be compensated for by improvements across the site as a whole. The loss of 3.75 hectares in Greenwich is part of the Ferrier Estate development. Again, this loss will be compensated for by the creation of new open spaces and habitat areas across the site as a whole.

The largest single loss of a Local Open Space is also part of the Ferrier Estate redevelopment in Greenwich which is part of the redevelopment and improvement of the wider area.

Details of all schemes resulting in a loss of over half a hectare are provided in the following table.

| Borough | Permission Reference | Area of existing open space | Description | Protected open space lost (hectares) | |---------|----------------------|-----------------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------| | Bromley | 09/02881/DET | 0.784 | Details of blocks D & E in the redevelopment of former Anerley School on MOL. Outline scheme originally approved by the Secretary of State. | 0.784 | | Greenwich | 08/2782/R | 3.750 | Phase 1 of redevelopment of Ferrier Estate. The loss of MOL for this phase will be mitigated by environmental improvements and new open spaces in later phases of the redevelopment. | 3.750 | | Greenwich | 09/2270/R | 0.810 | Phase 2a of Ferrier Estate redevelopment on Local Open Space. Loss will be compensated for in later phases of the redevelopment | 0.810 | | Hackney | 09/90059/REMODA | 6.728 | Loss of MOL in the Olympic site for the International Broadcast Centre will be compensated for on other parts of the site. | 6.728 | | Merton | 08/P1509 | 0.550 | Construction of a new special needs education centre on part of Riseley Playing Fields Local Open Space will include improvements to remaining facilities. | 0.550 | | Merton | 08/P1869 | 0.600 | Residential development on part of the privately owned Lessa Sports Ground Local Open Space will see much of the remaining site opened up for public use. | 0.600 |

Source: London development database | Progress | No. | Borough | Date | |----------------------------------------------|-----|--------------------------------|-------| | Completed an Open Space Strategy | 18 | Barking & Dagenham | 2003 | | | | Bexley | 2008 | | | | Camden (refresh 2011) | 2008 | | | | City of London | 2008 | | | | Croydon | 2005 | | | | Ealing | 2003 | | | | Hackney | 2008 | | | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 2010 | | | | Haringey | 2007 | | | | Havering | 2007 | | | | Islington | 2009 | | | | Lambeth | 2004 | | | | Lewisham | 2005 | | | | Merton | 2005 | | | | Southwark | 2006 | | | | Sutton | 2007 | | | | Tower Hamlets | 2006 | | | | Waltham Forest | 2010 | | | | Westminster | 2007 | | Open Space Strategy under Preparation / Draft| 8 | Brent | 2004 | | | | Harrow | 2006 | | | | Hillingdon | 2010 | | | | Hounslow | 2008 | | | | Newham | 2008 | | | | Redbridge | 1997 | | | | Richmond upon Thames | 2010 | | | | Wandsworth | 2007 | | Other strategy in place | 7 | Barnet | 2004 | | | | Bromley | 1994 | | | | Enfield | 2005 | | | | Greenwich | 2005 | | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 2006 | | | | Kingston upon Thames | 2008 |

Source: London Parks & Green Spaces Forum Jan2011 Objective 2 - To make London a better city for people to live in

Key Performance Indicator 4 An increased supply of new homes

Target Completion of at least 30,500 new homes a year

Table 19 and Table 20 show net conventional completions and approvals of dwellings. Differences from previously published data are due to continuous updating of the LDD system.

The 16% reduction in completions from peak output in 2008/9 (and the 5% reduction in approvals) are likely to reflect the national downturn in the housing market associated with the recent recession. The London Plan housing target in Table 19 provides a long term, average provision benchmark spanning what are likely to be different stages in the housing development cycles over a decade.

Table 19 Number of net housing completions by borough 2009/10

| Borough | Conventional | Non self-contained | Vacancies returning to use (HSSA data) | TOTAL | Target | Delivery (% of Target) | Vacancies returned to use (CT data) | |--------------------------|--------------|--------------------|----------------------------------------|-------|--------|------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Barnet | 671 | 0 | 402 | 1,073 | 2,055 | 52% | 194 | | Camden | 421 | 46 | -18 | 449 | 595 | 75% | 44 | | Enfield | 277 | -13 | 27 | 291 | 395 | 74% | -121 | | Hackney | 1,627 | 230 | 248 | 2,105 | 1,085 | 194% | 636 | | Haringey | 541 | 687 | -1,198 | 30 | 680 | 4% | 29 | | Islington | 1,479 | 479 | -50 | 1,908 | 1,160 | 164% | 319 | | Westminster | 689 | 294 | 313 | 1,296 | 680 | 191% | -44 | | NORTH SUB-TOTAL | 5,705 | 1,723 | -276 | 7,152 | 6,650 | 108% | 1,057 | | Barking and Dagenham | 210 | 0 | -380 | -170 | 1,190 | N/A | 70 | | City of London | 41 | 0 | 22 | 63 | 90 | 70% | 1 | | Havering | 427 | 0 | 25 | 452 | 535 | 84% | 146 | | Newham | 1,478 | 648 | -468 | 1,658 | 3,510 | 47% | 500 | | Redbridge | 950 | 0 | 161 | 1,111 | 905 | 123% | 172 | | Tower Hamlets | 2,465 | 171 | -2,342 | 294 | 3,150 | 9% | -252 | | Waltham Forest | 141 | -14 | 94 | 221 | 665 | 33% | 62 | | NORTH-EAST SUB-TOTAL | 5,712 | 805 | -2,888 | 3,629 | 10,045 | 36% | 699 | | Bexley | 357 | -7 | 95 | 445 | 345 | 129% | 85 | | Bromley | 553 | -7 | 285 | 831 | 485 | 171% | 80 | | Greenwich | 548 | 0 | 75 | 623 | 2,010 | 31% | 8 | | Lewisham | 780 | -7 | 0 | 703 | 975 | 72% | -141 | | Southwark | 1,341 | -28 | -282 | 1,031 | 1,630 | 63% | -361 | | SOUTH-EAST SUB-TOTAL | 3,579 | -119 | 173 | 3,633 | 5,445 | 67% | -329 | | Croydon | 1,371 | 1 | -346 | 1,026 | 1,100 | 93% | 159 | | Kingston upon Thames | 139 | -10 | 170 | 299 | 385 | 78% | 103 | | Lambeth | 1,156 | -7 | -226 | 923 | 1,100 | 84% | -342 | | Merton | 329 | 9 | 0 | 338 | 370 | 91% | 0 | | Richmond upon Thames | 217 | -15 | 170 | 372 | 270 | 138% | 117 | | Borough | Conventional | Non self-contained | Vacancies returning to use (HSSA data) | TOTAL | Target | Delivery (% of Target) | Vacancies returned to use (CT data) | |-------------------------|--------------|--------------------|----------------------------------------|-------|--------|------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Sutton | 204 | 0 | 75 | 279 | 345 | 81% | 168 | | Wandsworth | 1,573 | -127 | 16 | 1,462 | 745 | 196% | 47 | | SOUTH-WEST SUB-TOTAL | 4,989 | -149 | -141 | 4,699 | 4,315 | 109% | 252 | | Brent | 808 | -17 | -53 | 738 | 1,120 | 66% | 138 | | Ealing | 499 | -22 | -134 | 343 | 915 | 37% | 7 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 875 | -33 | 64 | 906 | 450 | 201% | -53 | | Harrow | 526 | -13 | -36 | 477 | 400 | 119% | 53 | | Hillingdon | 619 | 8 | 25 | 652 | 365 | 179% | -53 | | Hounslow | 648 | 0 | -82 | 566 | 445 | 127% | -23 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 330 | 9 | 507 | 846 | 350 | 242% | 226 | | WEST SUB-TOTAL | 4,305 | -68 | 291 | 4,528 | 4,045 | 112% | 295 | | TOTAL | 24,290 | 2,192 | -2,841 | 23,641| 30,500 | 78% | 1,974 |

Sources for Table 19: Conventional and Non-conventional supply from the London Development Database, Long Term Vacants from the Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix, 2008/09 and 2009/10, published by CLG

Note: ‘Vacants’ are private sector dwellings vacant in excess of 6 months. They are taken from figures published by CLG. Figures for Lewisham and Merton are not supplied.

The London Development Database applies a consistent methodology to the recording of completions data across London. As a result the figures may differ from those published in boroughs’ own AMRs, where local practices on recording partial completions of schemes, completions missed from previous years and losses of existing units will affect figures for each individual year. These differences should become less significant when viewing completion trends over time.

### Table 20 Housing Completion trends 2003/04 to 2009/10 (Net dwellings, conventional supply)

| Subregion | 2003/4 | 2004/5 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | |-----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------| | North | 5,688 | 5,904 | 5,156 | 6,109 | 7,135 | 8,031 | 5,705 | | North East | 7,555 | 4,834 | 5,351 | 6,386 | 6,225 | 6,403 | 5,712 | | South East | 4,695 | 6,031 | 4,813 | 4,676 | 3,918 | 3,441 | 3,579 | | South West | 3,870 | 5,901 | 5,157 | 4,851 | 5,787 | 6,057 | 4,989 | | West | 4,842 | 3,067 | 4,582 | 5,214 | 5,156 | 5,056 | 4,305 | | **Total** | **26,650** | **25,737** | **25,059** | **27,236** | **28,221** | **28,988** | **24,290** |

Source: London Development Database

### Table 21 Residential planning approval trends 2000/01 to 2009/10 (Net dwellings, conventional supply)

| Subregion | 2000/1 | 2001/2 | 2002/3 | 2003/4 | 2004/5 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | |-----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------| | North | 6,893 | 5,738 | 10,142 | 8,167 | 11,012 | 14,569 | 14,045 | 11,196 | 8,241 | 10,683 | | North East | 5,786 | 5,593 | 8,615 | 8,032 | 16,653 | 13,949 | 8,738 | 36,097 | 15,242 | 12,226 | | South East | 5,701 | 4,805 | 7,837 | 15,721 | 9,183 | 5,704 | 13,432 | 13,988 | 8,205 | 10,108 | | South West | 6,552 | 7,287 | 7,260 | 8,005 | 8,171 | 9,365 | 13,199 | 10,482 | 9,077 | 4,909 | | West | 5,417 | 5,714 | 6,960 | 4,906 | 10,458 | 9,400 | 8,316 | 8,701 | 5,685 | 6,192 | | **Total** | **30,349** | **29,137** | **40,814** | **44,831** | **55,477** | **52,987** | **57,730** | **80,464** | **46,450** | **44,118** |

Source: London Development Database. Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Housing

The London Development Database began collecting data on whether new dwellings are designed to meet Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessibility standards on permissions granted from 01/04/2008 onwards. The data is proving difficult for some boroughs to collect, which may explain the significant variation between boroughs on their delivery of Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes.

For more information on the Lifetime Homes standard see the web site at http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/index.php. These standards have been reflected in the Mayor’s draft Housing Design Guide to help designers more easily address inclusive design standards at the outset of the design process specifically for development on LDA owned land and for homes which will receive public subsidy after April 2011. The GLA has also supported Urban Design London in the provision of Inclusive Design Training courses for planners and urban designers. For more information see http://www.urbandesignlondon.com/.

For more information on the key features of wheelchair accessible housing see the GLA Best Practice Guide at http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/bpg-wheelchair-acc-housing.pdf. For full details see Habinteg’s Wheelchair Housing Design Guide at http://www.habinteg.org.uk/main.cfm?type=WCHDG.

All figures in Table 22 and Table 23 are ‘gross’ (i.e. don’t subtract existing units) and calculated at ‘scheme level’. This means that some units may be counted twice in cases where a revision to part of a scheme, usually in the form of details or reserved matters, is approved in the same year as the original permission.

LDD records four development types, new build, extension, change of use and conversion, Table 23 only includes new build units and extensions, while Table 22 includes all development types. Although developers should seek to construct all new dwellings to meet Lifetime Homes standards, there are often practical difficulties that can arise when seeking to modify existing buildings through conversion or change of use. Table 22 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible homes approved during 2009/10 (all development types)

| Borough | Units approved | Lifetime homes approved | % Lifetime Homes | Wheelchair accessible homes approved | % Wheelchair Accessible homes approved | |--------------------------|----------------|-------------------------|------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 640 | 567 | 88.6 | 48 | 7.5 | | Barnet | 3,262 | 1,232 | 37.8 | 36 | 1.1 | | Bexley | 289 | 216 | 74.7 | 14 | 4.8 | | Brent | 2,070 | 1,365 | 65.9 | 149 | 7.2 | | Bromley | 1,071 | 462 | 43.1 | 33 | 3.1 | | Camden | 1,108 | 582 | 52.5 | 54 | 4.9 | | City of London | 75 | 43 | 57.3 | 32 | 42.7 | | Croydon | 1,561 | 902 | 57.8 | 228 | 14.6 | | Ealing | 1,757 | 1,159 | 66.0 | 134 | 7.6 | | Enfield | 676 | 408 | 60.4 | 174 | 25.7 | | Greenwich | 7,139 | 6,742 | 94.4 | 283 | 4.0 | | Hackney | 2,932 | 1,744 | 59.5 | 164 | 5.6 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 1,014 | 708 | 69.8 | 179 | 17.7 | | Haringey | 705 | 145 | 20.6 | 10 | 1.4 | | Harrow | 947 | 739 | 78.0 | 99 | 10.5 | | Havering | 1,743 | 1,473 | 84.5 | 168 | 9.6 | | Hillingdon | 649 | 582 | 89.7 | 249 | 38.4 | | Hounslow | 523 | 35 | 6.7 | 13 | 2.5 | | Islington | 2,352 | 1,870 | 79.5 | 115 | 4.9 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,258 | 968 | 76.9 | 103 | 8.2 | | Kingston upon Thames | 299 | 152 | 50.8 | 19 | 6.4 | | Lambeth | 1,002 | 105 | 10.5 | 35 | 3.5 | | Lewisham | 4,167 | 3,630 | 87.1 | 289 | 6.9 | | Merton | 660 | 33 | 5.0 | 33 | 5.0 | | Newham | 4,811 | 4,651 | 96.7 | 477 | 9.9 | | Redbridge | 400 | 7 | 1.8 | 7 | 1.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 339 | 28 | 8.3 | 0 | 0.0 | | Southwark | 2,067 | 1,770 | 85.6 | 165 | 8.0 | | Sutton | 511 | 150 | 29.4 | 96 | 18.8 | | Tower Hamlets | 6,884 | 236 | 3.4 | 24 | 0.3 | | Waltham Forest | 648 | 518 | 79.9 | 38 | 5.9 | | Wandsworth | 1,428 | 393 | 27.5 | 162 | 11.3 | | Westminster | 1,502 | 895 | 59.6 | 141 | 9.4 | | **London** | **56,489** | **34,510** | **61.1** | **3,771** | **6.7** |

Source: London Development Database Table 23 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes approved during 2009/10 (New Build residential developments)

| Borough | New Build units approved | Lifetime homes from New Build | % Lifetime Homes from New Build | Wheelchair accessible homes from New Build | % Wheelchair Accessible from New Build | |--------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 559 | 507 | 90.7 | 40 | 7.2 | | Barnet | 2,889 | 1,192 | 41.3 | 32 | 1.1 | | Bexley | 228 | 187 | 82.0 | 13 | 5.7 | | Brent | 1,943 | 1,365 | 70.3 | 149 | 7.7 | | Bromley | 873 | 462 | 52.9 | 33 | 3.8 | | Camden | 610 | 523 | 85.7 | 45 | 7.4 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | Croydon | 1,225 | 885 | 72.2 | 222 | 18.1 | | Ealing | 1,259 | 1,040 | 82.6 | 114 | 9.1 | | Enfield | 422 | 361 | 85.5 | 127 | 30.1 | | Greenwich | 6,751 | 6,709 | 99.4 | 250 | 3.7 | | Hackney | 2,635 | 1,728 | 65.6 | 159 | 6.0 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 720 | 669 | 92.9 | 177 | 24.6 | | Haringey | 438 | 103 | 23.5 | 6 | 1.4 | | Harrow | 821 | 706 | 86.0 | 91 | 11.1 | | Havering | 1,658 | 1,473 | 88.8 | 168 | 10.1 | | Hillingdon | 554 | 549 | 99.1 | 236 | 42.6 | | Hounslow | 307 | 25 | 8.1 | 6 | 2.0 | | Islington | 1,981 | 1,869 | 94.3 | 114 | 5.8 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,041 | 965 | 92.7 | 100 | 9.6 | | Kingston upon Thames | 222 | 146 | 65.8 | 19 | 8.6 | | Lambeth | 646 | 95 | 14.7 | 25 | 3.9 | | Lewisham | 3,844 | 3,605 | 93.8 | 289 | 7.5 | | Merton | 540 | 32 | 5.9 | 32 | 5.9 | | Newham | 4,654 | 4,632 | 99.5 | 468 | 10.1 | | Redbridge | 363 | 4 | 1.1 | 4 | 1.1 | | Richmond upon Thames | 197 | 28 | 14.2 | 0 | 0.0 | | Southwark | 1,832 | 1,757 | 95.9 | 161 | 8.8 | | Sutton | 417 | 145 | 34.8 | 91 | 21.8 | | Tower Hamlets | 6,007 | 236 | 3.9 | 24 | 0.4 | | Waltham Forest | 465 | 452 | 97.2 | 34 | 7.3 | | Wandsworth | 1,088 | 345 | 31.7 | 142 | 13.1 | | Westminster | 954 | 804 | 84.3 | 107 | 11.2 | | **London** | **48,143** | **33,599** | **69.8** | **3,478** | **7.2** |

Source: London Development Database Key Performance Indicator 5 An increased supply of affordable homes

Target Completion of 50 per cent of new homes as affordable homes each year 2004–2016

Table 24 shows that in 2009/10, net affordable housing output from conventional completions in absolute terms was some 9,000, which is down on the 10,800 completed in 2008/9. However in proportional terms output has held steady at 37%.

As noted in AMR 6, the London Housing Strategy (LHS) investment target for affordable housing should not be confused with the affordable housing target set out in the London Plan. The LHS investment target includes new build and acquisitions, but the London Plan target is measured in terms of net conventional supply: that is, supply from new developments or conversions, adjusted to take account of demolitions and other losses. The LHS/investment figure is therefore generally higher than the planning target. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the London Development Database while monitoring achievement of the LHS investment targets uses the more broadly based figures provided by CLG (see Appendix 8 - Housing Provision in London 2009/10: Annual Monitor)

The London Plan definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes including planning targets which show the proportion of housing supply that is affordable. As with housing provision as a whole, affordable housing returns to the LDD are updated continuously and details in AMR 7 may not match those in previous Reports.

Because local affordable housing output can vary considerably from year to year, it is more meaningful to test individual borough performance against a longer term average. Figure 3 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2009/10. During this period affordable housing output averaged 36.8% of total provision. Figure 3 shows three year average performance of individual boroughs relative to this.

In the draft replacement London Plan the Mayor has signalled his intention to replace the 50% target in the 2008 Plan with a numeric target of 13,200 affordable homes per year. The Mayor intends to work with boroughs to enable them to set local targets to make their contribution towards achieving this taking into account local and strategic needs. These new targets may be expressed by borough in numeric or percentage terms as appropriate to local circumstances. However, while this new approach to target setting will be of increasing materiality as the replacement Plan proceeds to final publication, the benchmark for statutory planning monitoring purposes will remain the 50% target in the 2008 Plan. Table 25 shows how boroughs’ own planning targets currently relate to the 2008 50% strategic target and how they are achieving their local targets. | Borough | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 3-year total | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 3-Year Average | |-------------------------|---------|---------|---------|--------------|---------|---------|---------|----------------| | Barnet | 54 | 409 | 154 | 617 | 6 | 39 | 23 | 23 | | Camden | 115 | 402 | 216 | 733 | 25 | 45 | 51 | 41 | | Enfield | 444 | 73 | 30 | 547 | 46 | 20 | 11 | 34 | | Hackney | 672 | 915 | 611 | 2,198 | 44 | 44 | 38 | 42 | | Haringey | 211 | 339 | 273 | 823 | 39 | 46 | 50 | 45 | | Islington | 1,133 | 329 | 470 | 1,925 | 59 | 15 | 32 | 34 | | Westminster | 371 | 231 | 385 | 986 | 51 | 32 | 56 | 46 | | North Sub-Region | 3,000 | 2,698 | 2,139 | 7,829 | 42 | 34 | 37 | 38 | | Barking and Dagenham | 218 | 157 | 25 | 400 | 27 | 40 | 12 | 28 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Havering | 125 | 301 | 284 | 710 | 25 | 48 | 67 | 46 | | Newham | 437 | 590 | 712 | 1,739 | 43 | 49 | 48 | 47 | | Redbridge | 54 | 97 | 175 | 326 | 8 | 15 | 18 | 14 | | Tower Hamlets | 787 | 1,462 | 645 | 2,894 | 34 | 55 | 26 | 39 | | Waltham Forest | 236 | 298 | -130 | 404 | 29 | 40 | -92 | 24 | | North East Sub-Region | 1,857 | 2,905 | 1,711 | 6,473 | 30 | 45 | 30 | 35 | | Bexley | 134 | 51 | 239 | 424 | 50 | 22 | 67 | 50 | | Bromley | 267 | 177 | 224 | 668 | 37 | 36 | 41 | 38 | | Greenwich | 261 | 239 | 141 | 641 | 33 | 31 | 26 | 31 | | Lewisham | 233 | 205 | 168 | 606 | 26 | 24 | 22 | 24 | | Southwark | 537 | 314 | 700 | 1,551 | 43 | 29 | 52 | 42 | | South East Sub-region | 1,432 | 986 | 1,472 | 3,890 | 37 | 29 | 41 | 36 | | Croydon | 625 | 416 | 696 | 1,737 | 43 | 27 | 51 | 40 | | Kingston upon Thames | 109 | 0 | 30 | 139 | 30 | 0 | 22 | 19 | | Lambeth | 347 | 585 | 417 | 1,349 | 28 | 51 | 36 | 38 | | Merton | 244 | 265 | 49 | 558 | 37 | 34 | 15 | 32 | | Richmond upon Thames | 113 | 135 | 76 | 324 | 27 | 38 | 35 | 33 | | Sutton | 193 | 243 | -15 | 421 | 31 | 52 | -7 | 32 | | Wandsworth | 309 | 482 | 479 | 1,270 | 30 | 31 | 30 | 30 | | South West Sub-Region | 1,940 | 2,126 | 1,732 | 5,798 | 34 | 35 | 35 | 34 | | Brent | 423 | 589 | 414 | 1,426 | 55 | 52 | 51 | 53 | | Ealing | 412 | 309 | 283 | 1,004 | 29 | 37 | 57 | 37 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 237 | 315 | 441 | 993 | 46 | 69 | 50 | 54 | | Harrow | 116 | 228 | 209 | 553 | 31 | 30 | 40 | 33 | | Hillingdon | 156 | 179 | 189 | 524 | 32 | 22 | 31 | 27 | | Hounslow | 645 | 332 | 381 | 1,358 | 44 | 42 | 59 | 47 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 13 | 96 | 22 | 131 | 10 | 38 | 7 | 18 | | West Sub-Region | 2,002 | 2,048 | 1,939 | 5,989 | 39 | 41 | 45 | 41 | | London | 10,231 | 10,763 | 8,993 | 29,979 | 36 | 37 | 37 | 37 | Notes: When calculating net figures for phased schemes, LDD allocates unit losses to the year in which the final proposed unit in a scheme is completed. This can lead to negative net figures when large phased redevelopments reach their completion. The negative figure in Waltham Forest is due to the completion of the Beaumont Road Estate redevelopment in which 296 units are being lost and only 49 of 199 proposed affordable units were completed in 2009/10. The loss in Sutton is due to 114 units being lost in the Roundshaw development in which the final 41 of the 112 proposed affordable units were completed during 2009/10.

**Figure 3** Borough Affordable Housing Completions (2007/08-2009/10 average)

*Note* - the blue line represents the average across all boroughs. | Borough | Borough Policy Target (or practice) as at 2002 | Adopted borough policy target as at December 2010 (numerical / Percentage) | Emerging borough policy target December 2010 (numerical / Percentage) – N/a if recently adopted | Out-turn 2007/8 to 2009/10 | |-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 25% | 50% (August 2010) | n/a | | | Barnet | 30% | 50% | 30% (50% in AAP areas) | | | Bexley | 25% | 35% | 50% | | | Brent | 30-50% | 50% | n/a | | | Bromley | 20% | 35% | n/a | | | Camden | 50% proposed | 50% for >50 dwellings, 10-50% for \<50 dwellings | n/a | | | City of London | None | 50% | 30% | | | Croydon | 40% | 40%-50% | 35% borough wide target. Seeking 20% on-sites in year 1 of the plan with a yearly review of this target using a 'Dynamic Viability Model'. | | | Ealing | 50% | 50% | 50% | | | Enfield | 25% | 40% | n/a | | | Greenwich | 35% | 35% minimum (50% on greenfield/readily developable former employment land) | 35% | | | Hackney | 25% | 50% | 35% borough wide target. Seeking 20% on-sites in year 1 of the plan with a yearly review of this target using a 'Dynamic Viability Model'. | | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 65% proposed | 50% | 40% | | | Haringey | 30% | 50% | 50% | | | Harrow | 30% | London Plan | Target still to be defined - will be informed by finalised West London SHMA, and local viability report. | | | Havering | None | 50% (2008) | n/a | | | Hillingdon | 25% | 365 u/pa (50%) | 356 u/pa (50%) | | | Hounslow | 50% | 445 u/pa (50%) | 445u/pa (50%) | | | Islington | 25% | 50% | 50% | | | Borough | Borough Policy Target (or practice) as at 2002 | Adopted borough policy target as at December 2010 (numerical / Percentage) | Emerging borough policy target December 2010 (numerical / Percentage) – N/a if recently adopted | Out-turn 2007/8 to 2009/10 | |-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 33% | Minimum of 200 units per annum from 2011/12 (borough wide target) with a site specific policy of 50% affordable by floor area | n/a | | | Kingston upon Thames | 50% | 50% | 50% | | | Lambeth | 35-50% | 40% (50% with grant) | N/A | | | Lewisham | 30% | 35% | 50% | | | Merton | 30% | London Plan | 40% | | | Newham | 25% | London Plan | 50% overall (35-50% on individual sites) | | | Redbridge | 25% | 50% (2008) | n/a | | | Richmond upon Thames | 40% | 50% | n/a | | | Southwark | 25% | 50% overall (40% in CAZ; 35% in E&C and suburban zones) | 8,558 (equates to 35% borough-wide but varies locally) | | | Sutton | 25% | 50% | n/a | | | Tower Hamlets | 25-33% | 50% overall, 35%-50% on individual sites subject to viability | n/a | | | Waltham Forest | 40% | | 50% (5,700 homes) | | | Wandsworth | None | Minimum 373 units annum (3,725 borough wide target over 10 years) to be reviewed on adoption of the LP. Site specific policy of the max reasonable amount with a minimum target of 33% on each site | n/a | | | Westminster | 50% | 50% overall, 35%-50% on individual sites subject to viability | n/a | | Key Performance Indicator 5a Reducing Health Inequalities

Target By 2026, reducing by at least 10% the gap between life expectancy at birth in Areas for Regeneration and the average in London

This indicator was introduced in the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations) 2008. It has since been found that data to support this indicator are not directly available. Indicators 5a and 5b are being reviewed as part of the process of producing the Replacement London Plan, and it is intended that an alternative indicator, which can be more easily monitored, will be used in future.

The data in Table 26 are calculated using Office for National Statistics figures for annual life expectancy for males and females which are only available at borough level. As the life expectancy at ward level is not known, each regeneration area has been assumed to have the same level as the borough in which it is located. An average life expectancy for all Regeneration Areas has then been calculated based on the population in each Regeneration Area and their assumed life expectancy. This means that the resulting figures are strongly influenced by the life expectancies in the six boroughs with the highest populations in regeneration wards namely, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Islington, Southwark and Haringey. These six boroughs account for 68% of the population within regeneration wards. It is recognized that this approach may well under estimate the gap, as the regeneration wards are generally expected to have a lower life expectancy than the average for the borough in which they are located.

Table 26 Life Expectancy at Birth (2000-02 and 2007-09)

| | 2000-02 | | 2007-09 | | |----------------|---------|----------|---------|----------| | | Males | Females | Males | Females | | Regeneration Areas | 73.68 | 79.32 | 76.59 | 81.99 | | London Average | 75.77 | 80.50 | 78.60 | 83.10 | | Gap | 2.09 | 1.18 | 2.01 | 1.11 |

Source: ONS and GLA 2009 Round Demographic Projections

There has been a consistent improvement in the life expectancy at birth in both the the areas for regeneration and in London as a whole. The gap has reduced for both men and women between 2000-02 and 2007-09.

It is important to note that a death is a ‘semi-random’ event and therefore this indicator will not necessarily show a monotonic improvement due to the relatively small numbers of events involved. Trends will become more easily discernable over a longer period. Key Performance Indicator 5b Reducing Health Inequalities

Target By 2015, reducing by at least 10% the gap between the age standardized death rate from coronary heart disease per 100,000 people in Areas for Regeneration and the average in London

This indicator was introduced in the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations) 2008. It is now apparent that the data to support this indicator are not directly available and, as with KPI 5a above, this indicator is being reviewed for the Replacement London Plan.

For the purposes of AMRs 5 onwards, the indicator has been altered to show the Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR) - using Ischaemic deaths in London by age and gender as the basis of the calculation. The SMR compares actual total deaths to deaths expected if the death rates in the standard population (in this case London) apply to the population of the regeneration areas (disaggregated by 5-year age groups and gender). SMR is expressed as a percentage of the expected deaths.

Input data for this indicator are particularly volatile due to the relatively small numbers of Ischaemic deaths annually in London. In 2009 there were 4,045 male and 2,975 female Ischaemic deaths. In the regeneration boroughs the totals were 637 and 398 respectively.

Table 27 Standardised Mortality Ratios (Ischaemic deaths)

| Standardised Mortality Ratio | 2007 | 2009 | |-----------------------------|------|------| | Regeneration Areas: Males | 126 | 112 | | Regeneration Areas: Females | 107 | 103 | | Regeneration Areas: Persons | 118 | 108 | | London: Males and Females | 100 | 100 |

Source: ONS Vital Statistics and GLA 2009 Round Demographic Projections. Objective 3 - To make London a more prosperous city

Key Performance Indicator 6 Increasing sustainability and social inclusion by increasing the proportion of London residents working in jobs in London over the plan period (to 2026)

Target Net increase in the proportion of London residents working in London

AMR6 included data from the 1991 and 2001 censuses as well as data on out-commuting from the Labour Force Survey as a proxy measure for this indicator. However for this AMR the GLA’s Data Management and Analysis Group (DMAG) have compiled figures from the Annual Population Surveys back to 2004 which give a good picture of in and out-commuting in London over this period.

This Office for National Statistics data shows that the proportion of London residents working in London showed a small increase in 2009 for the second year in a row, but at 91.3% it is still slightly below the level in 2004, the first year for which data is available. The data also shows that the number of Londoners working in London has increased each year, although at a slightly slower rate than the total number of workers in London. Currently 75.2% of London’s jobs are taken by London residents compared to 76% in 2004.

Table 28 Proportion of London Residents Working in London 2004-2009

| Year | Londoners Working in London | Londoners Working outside London | Total Londoners in work | Commuters into London | Total workers in London | % of Londoners in work who work in London | |------|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------|------------------------------------------| | 2004 | 3,172,000 | 294,000 | 3,466,000 | 709,000 | 4,175,000 | 91.5 | | 2005 | 3,189,000 | 312,000 | 3,501,000 | 666,000 | 4,167,000 | 91.1 | | 2006 | 3,221,000 | 336,000 | 3,557,000 | 736,000 | 4,293,000 | 90.6 | | 2007 | 3,262,000 | 348,000 | 3,610,000 | 768,000 | 4,378,000 | 90.4 | | 2008 | 3,347,000 | 321,000 | 3,668,000 | 779,000 | 4,447,000 | 91.2 | | 2009 | 3,374,000 | 322,000 | 3,696,000 | 786,000 | 4,482,000 | 91.3 |

Source: Annual Population Survey, Office for National Statistics

Key Performance Indicator 7 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market.

Target The stock of permissions (measured as net lettable) should be at least three times the average rate of starts over the preceding three years.

This edition of the Annual Monitoring Report continues to utilise data from EGi London Offices, but has also included a comparable measure using data from the London Development Database (LDD). Final permissions and starts data from the LDD for 2010 are not yet available, hence the absence of a ratio figure for 2010. The variation between the two ratios is accounted for by the different definitions used in the datasets.

According to the EGi data, the ratio of permissions to average three years starts at end 2010 was 13:1. In the most recent set of comparable figures for 2009, the ratio of permissions to starts was 10:1 according to EGi and 7:1 according to LDD, both comfortably in excess of the target of 3:1.

Table 29 Ratio of planning permissions to three year average starts in central London

| Year | EGi | LDD | |------|------|------| | 2004 | 12:1 | 6.4:1| | 2005 | 8:1 | 7.4:1| | 2006 | 8.4:1| 8.7:1| | 2007 | 6.3:1| 4.7:1| | 2008 | 7:1 | 4.1:1| | 2009 | 10:1 | 7:1 | | 2010 | 13:1 | N/A |

Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices, London Development Database

Figure 4 Office starts and year-end permissions in Central London 1985-2010

Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices

______________________________________________________________________

4 EGi data for permissions is based on planning committee decisions which are a precursor to discussion on the content of s.106 agreements, whereas LDD waits for a decision letter to be issued which does not happen until the legal agreement has been signed. LDD data has a minimum threshold of 1,000 sq m gross, whereas EGI’s threshold is c.100 sq m gross. LDD data excludes refurbishments where the existing building is already in office use which are included by EGI. In addition EGI data for starts is based on observed construction of new or refurbished space, whereas LDD records whether work is started in a legal sense, so can include demolition works as starts where these, in effect, activate the permission. Over the period 2004-2010 the office floorspace permissions recorded by LDD are typically 60-70% of the floorspace recorded by EGI. The LDD figure provides a useful measure of the store of permissions available to facilitate the immediate responsiveness of developers to changes in demand, whereas the EGI figure gives a broader measure of activity by developers in the office market (accepting that some of the permissions in that dataset may never come to fruition).

5 Central London defined here as Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth In 2010 the volume of construction starts was 308,000 sq metres net, an increase of 52% on the 2009 figure of 203,000 sq metres net. Construction starts continued to be constrained by the lack of conventional debt funding for office development, remaining well below the average rate of starts over the period 1985-2010 of 585,000 sq metres net.

Of the 308,000 sq metres net commenced in 2010, 141,000 sq metres net (46%) was located in the City market area, 87,000 sq metres net (28%) in the West End and 43,000 sq metres net (14%) in the South Bank. Starts in the City market were dominated by The Pinnacle scheme at Bishopsgate, EC2, which at 116,810 sq metres net accounted for 39% of all Central London starts. Press comment, however, suggests that the development was not fully funded at the end of 2010. Six other schemes which started in the City market included five schemes in the City Fringe where offices formed part of mixed-use residential developments. Fourteen schemes commenced in the West End, including five schemes over 10,000 sq metres net: Selborne House, 54-60 Victoria Street, SW1 (30,000 sq metres net), Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, SW1 (22,000 sq metres net), Park House, Park Street, W1 (18,000 sq metres net), 8 Baker Street, W1 (12,000 sq metres net) and Marcol House, Regent Street, W1 (11,000 sq metres net). On the South Bank there was one significant start at London Bridge Quarter with the commencement of 41,000 sq metres net at London Bridge Place, a companion building to The Shard.

The planning pipeline of permissions in central London decreased by 9% in 2010 to 3.8 million sq metres net. The overall level of consented development continued to be influenced by very large schemes. Five schemes were each over 100,000 sq metres net and together accounted for 35% of all permitted development, being Wood Wharf, E14 (368,691 sq metres net), King’s Cross, NW1 (364,408 sq metres net), North Quay (Canary Wharf), E14 (298,128 sq metres net), Heron Quays (Canary Wharf), E14 (154,540 sq metres net) and Battersea Power Station (126,223 sq metres net). By borough, LB Tower Hamlets continued to have the highest level of outstanding permissions with 1.26 million sq metres net followed by the City of London with 880,000 sq metres net; together these two boroughs accounted for 56% of permissions. There was a further 490,000 sq metres net in LB Camden and 370,000 sq metres net in the City of Westminster which are together broadly analogous to the West End market area. Taken together, these four boroughs accounted for 79% of permitted office development.

The occupational market strengthened in 2010 with a reduction in availability and growth in take-up. According to Knight Frank, for example, central London office supply decreased by 20% during 2010, while take-up increased by 22%. Most agent commentators are projecting growth in rents in 2011, driven in particular by the lack of new, refurbished and Grade A space. Lack of choice for occupiers in ready-to-occupy space could encourage some pre-letting activity leading to construction starts in de-risked schemes. Emerging shortages of the best quality space are expected to stimulate some speculative construction starts in 2011, including major office towers in the City such as the “Walkie-Talkie” at Fenchurch Street and the “Cheesegrater” at Leadenhall Street. It remains the case, however, that bank funding for speculative office development is scarce and as a result construction activity is likely to be led by Real Estate Investment Trusts, funding institutions and sovereign wealth funds with cash to allocate.

AMR8 will examine planning and construction data at the end of 2011 and analyse whether the development industry was constrained by the planning system in meeting the needs of occupational market. **Key Performance Indicator 8** Direction of economic and population growth to follow the indicative sub-regional allocations and fulfil the priority to east London

**Target** Development in Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification for each sub-region measured against the Chapter 5 indicative figures in the London Plan

Significant progress – described in detail in Appendix 3 - has been made in progressing development in many of the London Plan Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification Objective 4 - To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination

Key Performance Indicator 9 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market

Target Age specific unemployment rates for black and minority ethnic groups to be no higher than for the white population by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011

In 2009 Londoners from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups were twice as likely as those from White groups to be unemployed. However, the overall ratio of BAME unemployment to unemployment in White groups has fallen from 2½ to 2 since 2008.

The gap in rates is consistent across different age groups, with unemployment most pronounced in the 16-24 age group.

The absolute number of people of working-age who are unemployed rose 90,000 from 273,000 in 2008 to 363,000 in 2009 accounting for a rise of two percentage points in the unemployment rate. Unemployment in white groups aged 16-24 has increased by 4.2 percentage points between 2008 and 2009, compared with an increase of 3.4 percentage points in BAME groups of the same age. Rates for both ethnic groups aged 25-44 have risen by around two percentage points, causing the gap ratio of BAME to White unemployment to fall slightly from 2.3 in 2008 to 1.9 in 2009. The BAME/White unemployed ratio for those aged 45-64 also fell slightly from 2.2 in 2008 to 2.0 in 2009.

While data presented here relate to aggregations of minority ethnic groups, it is fully recognised that within the BAME population there is huge variation in unemployment rates. Census 2001 data show that rates ranged from 5.9 per cent for Indian Londoners up to 20.5 per cent among Bangladeshi Londoners. Rates were also high for Black Londoners (12.3-17.6 per cent).

Table 30 Age specific unemployment rates for White and BAME groups, Greater London - 2009

| All persons | White groups | BAME groups | Ratio | |-------------|--------------|-------------|-------| | Unemployed | Rate (%) | Unemployed | Rate (%) | Unemployed | Rate (%) | BAME/White | | All working age | 363,000 | 9.1 | 188,000 | 6.9 | 176,000 | 13.8 | 2.0 | | Age 16-24 | 113,000 | 22.2 | 56,000 | 16.8 | 57,000 | 32.6 | 1.9 | | Age 25-44 | 173,000 | 7.5 | 88,000 | 5.8 | 85,000 | 11.1 | 1.9 | | Age 45-59/64 | 77,000 | 6.5 | 43,000 | 5.0 | 34,000 | 10.1 | 2.0 |

Source: Annual Population Survey 2009

Notes: The APS is a sample survey, so all estimates are subject to a degree of sampling variability. The definition of unemployment used here is the ILO measure (International Labour Organisation) which relates to people not in work, who had actively looked for work in the last four weeks and who were available to start work in the next two weeks. Rates express the number unemployed as a proportion of the labour force (i.e. the economically active population). BAME groups refers to all ethnic groups other than White groups. Key Performance Indicator 10 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market

Target Percentage of lone parents dependant on income support to be no higher than the UK average by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011

In May 2010 lone parent families in London continued to be more likely to claim Income Support relative to the national average. The number of lone parent families on income support in London has risen by 5,000 between May 2009 and May 2010, equivalent to an increase of one percentage point. Numbers in Great Britain grew at an even faster rate of 2.5 percentage points between 2009 and 2010. This has caused a narrowing of the gap between London and GB rates of 1.5 percentage points over the same period.

Table 31 Lone parents on Income Support as % of all lone parent families

| Quarter | Greater London | Great Britain | |---------|----------------|---------------| | | Lone parents families on IS | As % of lone parent families | Lone parents Families on IS | As % of lone parent families | Difference in percentage points (London-GB) | | May 2001 | 168,400 | 59.2 | 900,320 | 50.8 | 8.5 | | May 2002 | 166,840 | 57.4 | 870,850 | 47.7 | 9.7 | | May 2003 | 166,630 | 56.1 | 855,710 | 45.7 | 10.3 | | May 2004 | 165,120 | 54.4 | 823,180 | 43.4 | 11.0 | | May 2005 | 163,620 | 52.4 | 789,270 | 40.8 | 11.6 | | May 2006 | 162,770 | 50.8 | 774,780 | 39.3 | 11.4 | | May 2007 | 160,450 | 49.0 | 765,530 | 38.4 | 10.6 | | May 2008 | 152,520 | 45.7 | 738,580 | 36.6 | 9.1 | | May 2009 | 141,720 | 42.4 | 720,420 | 34.7 | 7.6 | | May 2010 | 146,710 | 43.3 | 777,550 | 37.2 | 6.1 |

Sources: GLA calculations based on data from Department of Work and Pensions & Office for National Statistics

Key Performance Indicator 11a Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services

Target An increase in the provision of childcare places per 1,000 under fives, particularly in Areas of Regeneration

This target was added to the London Plan in 2008 along with current indicator 11b and replaced the previous Key Performance indicator 11. However the data supporting the indicator have since ceased to be produced in a comparable format. Each borough is now required to do an assessment of the sufficiency of childcare, but a full review is only required every three years and there is no uniform format in which the data is returned, thus making it inappropriate to be used as an indicator. The Mayor has therefore decided to draw up a new indicator for the replacement London Plan based on available data.

**Key Performance Indicator 11b** Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services

**Target** An improvement in the percentage of pupils obtaining five or more GCSEs at grades A\*-C in Areas of Regeneration relative to the LEA as a whole

This target was added to the London Plan in 2008 and replaced the previous Key Performance indicator 11 along with indicator 11a.

These data can no longer be sourced from the GLA’s Data Management and Analysis Group and are now obtained from the Office for National Statistics. To ensure that the information used is the most authoritative available, it is now grouped by pupil home Middle Super Output Area (MSOA) rather than by home ward as shown in the Plan itself. The figures record the number in the examination cohort and the percentage gaining 5 higher grade GCSE passes. That percentage figure has been used to calculate the number gaining 5 higher grade passes in each MSOA.

This information is not directly comparable with that used in AMR 6, so to enable comparison to be made with previous years performance, data for the whole period 2004/5 – 2008/9 has been recalculated on a consistent basis. 2004/05 was chosen as the year for comparison as it is the first year for which comparable data can be calculated. However reporting practice has changed between 2005 and 2009. In 2004/05 results were reported for pupils at the end of compulsory schooling. In 2008/09 results were reported for pupils at the end of key stage 4. There is a large degree of overlap between the two groups, but they are not exactly the same.

Between 2004/05 and 2008/09 there has been a considerable improvement in the percentage of pupils gaining 5 or more A\*-C grade qualifications across London. However the rate of improvement in the MSOAs containing Regeneration Areas has been even better. This pattern has generally been reflected throughout the relevant London boroughs with 20 of the 24 showing a better improvement in their Regeneration MSOAs than across the borough as a whole. Only Camden has shown a rate of improvement that is significantly slower in the Regeneration Areas.

In 2004/05 the gap in achievement between all pupils and those in the selected MSOAs was just under 10%. This gap has now fallen to just over 6%. Table 32 Percentage of pupils reaching the national benchmark of 5+ A\*-C GCSE grades in 2004/05 and 2008/09

| Borough | All pupils by home borough 2004/05 and 2008/09 | All pupils living in regeneration areas by home borough 2004/05 and 2008/09 | |--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | Percentage of all locally resident pupils aged 15 gaining 5+ A\*-C grades 04/05 | Percentage change 04/05 to 08/09 Estimated percentage of pupils aged 15 living in regeneration areas gaining 5+ A\*-C grades 08/09 Percentage change 04/05 to 08/09 | | Barking and Dagenham | 51.2 | 15.3 | 41.00 | 60.95 | 19.94 | | Barnet | 63.7 | 13.3 | 45.70 | 68.00 | 22.30 | | Bexley | 57.7 | 14.9 | | | | | Brent | 57.3 | 14.1 | 42.69 | 60.62 | 17.93 | | Bromley | 66.5 | 12.9 | 35.40 | 55.20 | 19.80 | | Camden | 49.1 | 13.7 | 45.46 | 55.24 | 9.78 | | City of London | 62.5 | 10.8 | | | | | Croydon | 54.7 | 18.9 | 33.60 | 59.70 | 26.10 | | Ealing | 59.4 | 13.2 | 47.15 | 61.88 | 14.74 | | Enfield | 52.3 | 15.3 | 38.31 | 62.35 | 24.04 | | Greenwich | 48.1 | 16.9 | 41.93 | 60.63 | 18.70 | | Hackney | 47.9 | 19.2 | 46.77 | 66.38 | 19.62 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 50.4 | 24.1 | 43.54 | 71.93 | 28.39 | | Haringey | 51.5 | 17.7 | 46.03 | 67.58 | 21.55 | | Haringey | 65.8 | 12.3 | | | | | Havering | 60 | 10.1 | | | | | Hillingdon | 53.3 | 17.8 | | | | | Hounslow | 54.8 | 17.5 | 42.10 | 58.90 | 16.80 | | Islington | 46.5 | 19.1 | 43.19 | 64.89 | 21.70 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 53.1 | 27.7 | 48.23 | 81.86 | 33.63 | | Kingston upon Thames | 66.1 | 10.7 | | | | | Lambeth | 49.4 | 23.9 | 46.27 | 72.20 | 25.93 | | Lewisham | 51.1 | 13.3 | 42.33 | 60.23 | 17.89 | | Merton | 53.2 | 20.3 | | | | | Newham | 51.7 | 13.1 | 51.79 | 64.18 | 12.39 | | Redbridge | 68.4 | 8.0 | 43.80 | 52.10 | 8.30 | | Richmond upon Thames | 64.7 | 13.1 | | | | | Southwark | 48.2 | 21.2 | 46.26 | 67.76 | 21.50 | | Sutton | 58.8 | 20.9 | | | | | Tower Hamlets | 51.4 | 14.8 | 51.21 | 66.00 | 14.79 | | Waltham Forest | 51.8 | 13.8 | 41.66 | 62.27 | 20.61 | | Wandsworth | 55 | 14.4 | 43.35 | 70.34 | 26.99 | | Westminster | 44.3 | 31.1 | 37.46 | 76.51 | 39.05 | | Actual ONS GOR percentage statistic for London | 55.6 | 15.7 | | | | | **London totals based on summing borough numbers** | **55.6** | **15.72** | **45.96** | **65.03** | **19.07** |

Source: ONS Neighbourhood Statistics web site at [http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/](http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/) Objective 5 - To improve London’s accessibility

Key Performance Indicator 12 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

Target Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head

There has been a 26% increase in public transport journey stages per head between 2001 and 2009, compared with 11% decrease in car journeys per head.

Public transport journeys per head in 2009 were almost the same as the previous year, with a decrease of less than half a per cent. Public transport use increased steadily between 2001 and 2008 apart from a dip in 2005 that can be attributed to the impact of the London bombings that July. Private transport in London has generally shown a declining trend over this period. Between 2008 and 2009 there was a further decrease in the use of the car, with the index for private transport falling by 3 per cent after a similar decrease in the previous year. This decline and the slowing of growth in the public transport index are attributable at least partly to the effects on travel demand of the economic downturn of 2008 and 2009. The net result was a further widening of the gap between the public and private indices, representing a net mode shift to public transport.

Table 33 Public and private transport indexes

| Year | Public Transport Index | Private Transport Index | |------|------------------------|-------------------------| | 2001 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | 2002 | 103.2 | 99.3 | | 2003 | 108.7 | 98.3 | | 2004 | 114.3 | 95.2 | | 2005 | 113.0 | 92.4 | | 2006 | 116.1 | 93.4 | | 2007 | 122.6 | 95.1 | | 2008 | 126.5 | 92.1 | | 2009 | 126.1 | 89.4 |

Source: Transport for London

Note: figures have been revised from previous AMRs.

The indices are derived from the time series of journey stages per head compiled for Travel in London Report 3, published by TfL in December 2010). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. For consistency the population estimates include in-commuters and visitors (derived from the Labour Force Survey and the International Passenger Survey, respectively). Key Performance Indicator 13 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

Target From 2001-2011, 15 per cent reduction in traffic in the congestion charging zone, zero traffic growth in inner London, and traffic growth in outer London reduced to no more than 5 per cent

Monitoring by Transport for London of traffic entering the central London Congestion Charging Zone showed that levels of traffic (for vehicles of four or more wheels) in the centre of London fell by 18 per cent between 2002 and 2003 when charging was introduced. Traffic entering the zone remained relatively stable between 2003 and 2007. Significant incremental falls were observed in 2008 for some vehicle types leading to a 6 per cent decline for vehicles of four or more wheels, and this trend continued in 2009 with a further 4 per cent decline.

In Inner London outside central London, annual traffic declined by 3 percent between 2008 and 2009 following a similar decrease in the previous year. Traffic in 2009 in inner London was 11 percent below that recorded in 2001. In Outer London, traffic has remained almost constant between 2001 and 2008, with marginal changes of less than 1 per cent (in either direction) in most years. Outer London traffic fell by 3 percent in 2009 to a level that was 4 per cent lower than in 2001.

Table 34 Traffic (billion vehicle kilometres, all vehicles) 2001-2008: Inner and Outer London

| | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | All roads: | | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 32.5 | 32.6 | 32.5 | 32.5 | 32.0 | 31.4 | 31.8 | 32.0 | 31.4 | 30.4 | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 9.0 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 8.6 | 8.5 | 8.7 | 8.6 | 8.4 | 8.1 | | Outer London | 22.2 | 22.1 | 22.3 | 22.5 | 22.3 | 21.8 | 21.9 | 22.3 | 21.9 | 21.3 | | Index (2001=100):| | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 100.0| 99.7 | 99.7 | 98.2 | 96.5 | 97.6 | 98.3 | 96.3 | 93.4 | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 100.0| 97.8 | 97.1 | 93.5 | 93.1 | 95.6 | 94.3 | 91.6 | 88.6 | | Outer London | 100.0| 100.6| 101.4| 100.8| 98.5 | 99.1 | 100.8| 99.1 | 96.2 | | Major roads only:| | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 20.7 | 20.8 | 20.7 | 20.8 | 20.6 | 19.9 | 20.2 | 20.5 | 20.2 | 19.7 | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 5.0 | | Outer London | 14.3 | 14.4 | 14.5 | 6 | 14.6 | 14.1 | 14.2 | 14.5 | 14.2 | 13.9 | | | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |----------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Greater London | 100.0| 99.5 | 99.6 | 98.7 | 95.3 | 96.7 | 98.4 | 96.7 | 94.4 | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 100.0| 96.5 | 96.3 | 92.4 | 89.9 | 93.5 | 94.4 | 92.3 | 89.5 | | Outer London | 100.0| 100.9| 101.5| 101.8| 97.9 | 98.5 | 100.7| 99.2 | 97.1 |

Source: Transport for London Planning. Estimates derived from data provided by DfT from surveys undertaken for the GB national road traffic series. Updated (December 2010) with revised series as published in Travel in London report 3, section 2.11

Note: Transport for London estimates annual road traffic (vehicle kilometres) in Greater London using data from its own traffic counts and those undertaken for the Department of Transport’s National Road Traffic Estimates. TfL’s analysis showed that DfT’s methodology did not reflect traffic trends in London since 1999 with sufficient accuracy, particularly for minor roads. TfL has produced a series of estimates that are closer to the trends indicated by its own data. Estimates for this London Plan Annual Monitoring Report are based on the TfL traffic series, first published in Travel in London, report 1 (April 2009) for years to 2007 and updated to 2009 in Travel in London, report 3 (December 2010).

**Key Performance Indicator 14** Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target** A five per cent increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2001-2011.

Table 35 shows that the number of passengers on the Thames is steadily increasing over the baseline situation in 2001. River passengers have more than doubled since 2001 (a 166% increase). Following the events of 7 July 2005, passenger numbers on leisure services fell significantly, but subsequently recovered to previous levels. Passenger numbers on the riverbus services have shown significant growth since July 2005. In November 2007, Thames Clippers’ riverbus service was expanded to run between Waterloo (BA London Eye) and the O2 at a 20 minute frequency throughout the day and every 30 minutes in the late evening. Strong growth in riverbus and leisure services continued in 2008/9 due to the low value of the pound attracting visitors to London and a successful programme of events at the O2 boosting Thames Clippers’ patronage. It is anticipated that the number of passengers carried on the Thames will continue to grow, but at a much slower rate as demonstrated by the latest figure.

Table 36 deals with cargo carried by river. A significant proportion of the freight transported on the River Thames in the capital is aggregates for the construction industry. The demand/opportunities of this industry have over time significantly influenced changes in trade. This industry has been especially hard hit by the economic conditions. However, the significant construction projects already committed to or in planning mean that the PLA remains optimistic for the medium term prospects of freight on the River Thames in London.

Sufficient wharf capacity is essential to allow freight trade on the Thames to grow. A review of the 2005 Safeguarded Wharves Implementation Plan has commenced and is expected to be published by the end of 2011. Table 35 Passengers on the River Thames

| Year | Number of Passengers | % increase on previous year | |--------------------|----------------------|----------------------------| | April 2000 – March 2001 | 1,573,830 | - | | April 2001 – March 2002 | 2,011,736 | 28% | | April 2002 – March 2003 | 2,030,385 | 1% | | April 2003 – March 2004 | 2,123,820 | 5% | | April 2004 – March 2005 | 2,343,280 | 10% | | April 2005 – March 2006 | 2,373,350 | 1% | | April 2006 – March 2007 | 2,746,700 | 16% | | April 2007 – March 2008 | 3,078,300 | 12% | | April 2008 – March 2009 | 3,892,700 | 26% | | April 2009 – March 2010 | 4,188,500 | 8% |

Source: TfL London River Services

Note: Figures are for passenger journeys on boat operators using TfL London River Services piers and the Thames Clipper Savoy (London Eye from November 2007) to Woolwich Arsenal service. This excludes a number of other services working from independent piers. Figures also include passengers on charter boats. Ticket sales count both single and return tickets as one journey on all services except Thames Clippers.

Table 36 Cargo trade on the River Thames within Greater London

| Year | Tonnes of Cargo | % increase on previous year | |------|-----------------|----------------------------| | 2001 | 10,757,000 | - | | 2002 | 9,806,000 | 9% decrease | | 2003 | 9,236,000 | 6% decrease | | 2004 | 8,743,000 | 5% decrease | | 2005 | 9,288,000 | 6% increase | | 2006 | 9,337,000 | 0.5% increase | | 2007 | 8,642,000 | 7% decrease | | 2008 | 9,312,000 | 8% increase | | 2009 | 8,146,000 | 13% decrease |

Source: Port of London Authority.

Key Performance Indicator 15 Increase in public transport capacity

Target 50 per cent increase in public transport capacity between 2001 – 2021, with interim increases to reflect Table 6A.2

In the previous Annual Monitoring Report it was stated that the target 5% increase in capacity between 2001 and 2006 had been met, with a 6% increase in capacity. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy was published in May 2010, which set out an indicative programme of transport schemes. It was noted in the Transport Strategy that the funded package of investment in London’s transport system is expected to increase public transport capacity in the three-hour AM peak period by over 30% in the period from 2006. The funded package of investment is planned to be delivered over the period to 2020. The outcome of the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review was announced in October 2010 and confirmed funding for key elements of London’s transport programme, including Crossrail and the London Underground upgrades.

Work is underway on the Tube upgrades, although these works have resulted in a temporary reduction in overall service capacity. Following TfL’s acquisition of Tube Lines, the PPP contractor, it is now expected that the Jubilee line upgrade will be delivered in spring 2011. When completed, the Jubilee line upgrade will provide a 33 per cent capacity increase. The Victoria line upgrade, which will provide a 21 per cent capacity increase, is planned to be completed in 2012. The full programme of upgrades will deliver a 30 per cent increase in capacity on the Tube.

The Comprehensive Spending Review announcement confirmed funding for Crossrail, with services planned to commence in 2018. This is one year later than previously planned and reflects a more efficient, and cost effective construction timetable. Major construction work for Crossrail is already underway.

In 2010, and following the opening of the extension to Woolwich Arsenal in 2009, the capacity of the Docklands Light Railway was upgraded from two-car to three-car trains between Bank and Lewisham, and between Stratford and Lewisham.

In May 2010 the former East London Line was replaced with London Overground services including extensions north and south, new trains and four new stations. By May 2011, services will be extended to Highbury & Islington, linking London Overground with the Victoria line and the Richmond to Stratford branches of London Overground. The London Overground extension to Clapham Junction is planned to be delivered by the end of 2012. Work is also underway to allow an increase in capacity on London Overground services between Richmond and Stratford.

**Key Performance Indicator 16**

**Increase in public transport capacity**

**Target**

Regular assessment of the adequacy of transport capacity to support development in Opportunity and Intensification areas

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy was published in May 2010 and includes a transport programme which was informed by recognition of the overall transport capacity requirements of forecast London Plan growth. In Opportunity and Intensification areas, further analysis is required to understand the impact of more intensive growth.

Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPF) are in progress for a number of different areas including Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea, London Riverside, White City, Upper Lea Valley, London Bridge and Bankside, Earls Court and Croydon. Supplementary Planning Guidance is also being produced for the Olympics Legacy area. A strategic transport study is undertaken for each of these as an input to the OAPF, SPG and/or borough SPD, which includes an assessment to identify transport interventions required to support proposed levels of development. These studies use the sub regional transport models that TfL has recently developed and provide a framework for more detailed work including transport assessments.

TfL has also produced sub regional transport plans in collaboration with boroughs and other stakeholders, which set out transport challenges, including the impact of development, and recommend solutions for each of the five sub-regions in London. These plans will remain ‘live’ documents to be regularly updated as appropriate. Key Performance Indicator 17 Increase in the number of jobs located in areas with high PTAL values

Target Maintain at least 50% of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 and at least 90% of B2 and B8 development in Zones 0-2

This target aims to show that high density employment generators such as offices are mainly located in areas with good access to public transport, while major developments in low density uses such as Industry and Storage and Distribution are in suitable out of town centre locations. It was revised for the London Plan 2008 and now formally represents the proxy data that was used in previous AMRs.

The London Development Database has been used in combination with a GIS system to generate a matrix of types of employment development permitted within three groupings of public transport accessibility. This is measured using the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score generated by Transport for London.

The data shows that 43% of permitted B1 development floorspace is in areas with a high PTAL score (5-6), below the 50% target. If permitted B1 development floorspace in PTAL score range 4-6 is taken into account, the percentage rises to 63%. Three significant B1 schemes were permitted in the medium/low PTAL range including Wood Wharf in Tower Hamlets (460,000 sq metres gross), Riverside South, Westferry Circus in Tower Hamlets (371,000 sq metres gross) and the Olympic Press Centre in Hackney (95,000 sq metres gross). All three of these schemes are in locations where public transport accessibility is improving or investments are proposed. The majority of permitted general industry (B2) and storage and distribution (B8) floorspace is in the low PTAL range, (96% and 91% respectively) both above the 90% target.

Table 37 Employment floorspace permitted by PTAL zone - 2009/10 Approvals

| Accessibility (PTAL Group) | Employment floorspace by land use class 2007/8 | | |---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---| | | B1 m² | B1 % | B2 m² | B2 % | B8 m² | B8 % | | Low (0 to 2) | 708,848| 33.49%| 193,181| 95.81%| 264,319| 93.10%| | Medium (3 to 4) | 493,095| 23.30%| 7,299 | 3.62% | 9,722 | 3.42% | | High (5 to 6) | 914,459| 43.21%| 1,140 | 0.57% | 9,862 | 3.47% | | Totals | 2,116,402| 201,620| 283,903|

Source: London Development Database - B1, B2 and B8 approvals. Only permissions with 1,000m² or more in a particular use class are recorded on LDD. They are “gross” figures that do not take account of the existing use. PTAL is measured from the location of the site marker, which is generally located in the centre of the site. This means that for large sites, such as the Stratford City development, a low PTAL rating will be given despite the large variance across different parts of the site.

PTAL – Public Transport Accessibility Level B1 – Offices, light industry, research and development uses. B2 – General Industrial uses B8 – Storage and distribution uses including warehouses. Objective 6 - To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city

Key Performance Indicator 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat

Target No net loss of designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation over the plan period.

The London Development Database records the following conservation designations; Statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest, Site of Metropolitan Importance, Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance, Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance and Site of Local Importance. Table 38 records all permissions granted in 2009/10 that include areas with any of these conservation designations.

There have been several approvals of planning permissions on protected sites of importance for nature conservation during 2009/10. The majority of them do not represent any actual loss of open space, for example the incorporation of agricultural land into the Stanmore Country Park in Harrow. There are two schemes that account for nearly 8.8 hectares, the majority of the recorded loss. The largest loss is the permission for the media broadcast centre within the Olympic Park which will be compensated for by new parks and improvements to the public realm across the site as a whole. The other is for a new research building within the grounds of the Institute of Cancer Research’s campus in Sutton.

Table 38 Changes in protected habitat due to new development

| Borough | Protected area affected by dev (ha) | Comment | Net loss of conservation sites (ha) | |--------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 0.156 | Incorporation of countryside area of Borough Grade 1 importance into adjacent golf course | No loss | | Bexley | 0.182 | Access shaft to new electric cable tunnel and hardstanding on edge of public park designated Borough Grade 1 importance | -0.182 | | Brent | 0.374 | Loss of part of churchyard of Borough Grade 2 importance in redevelopment of church hall site. Most will become residential gardens. | -0.374 | | Ealing | 0.058 | Loss of part of old orchard of Local Importance to be compensated for by extensive environmental improvements and new public spaces | -0.026 | | Hackney | 6.728 | Loss of open space of Local Importance within Olympic Park to be compensated for by environmental improvements elsewhere | -6.728 | | Hackney | 0.023 | Incorporation of small area adjacent to the New River designated as being of Metropolitan Importance into the curtilage of a residential development | -0.023 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0.065 | Small encroachment onto adjacent park of Local Importance as part of the mixed use regeneration of a former leisure centre | -0.065 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0.102 | Creation of a new children’s play area within an area of Local Importance | No loss | | Harrow | 22.140 | Incorporation of agricultural areas of part Borough Grade 2 and part Metropolitan importance into Stanmore Country Park, thus improving public access | No loss | | Borough | Protected area affected by dev (ha) | Comment | Net loss of conservation sites (ha) | |-------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Harrow | 0.160 | Provision of new sports facilities and environmental improvements on part of existing park designated as a Site of Local Importance | No loss | | Hillingdon | 2.740 | Creation of new public park on green belt land of Metropolitan Importance | No loss | | Richmond upon Thames | 1.063 | Redevelopment of former goods yard within Barnes Common Site of Metropolitan Importance will include environmental improvements to an area still covered by old hardstanding and currently of little conservation value | No loss | | Sutton | 2.040 | New research buildings within curtilage of existing Cancer Research Campus which is a Site of Local Importance | -2.040 | | **Total Area (Gross hectares):** | **35.874** | | **-9.438** |

Source: London Development Database

**Key Performance Indicator 19** Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted

**Target** At least 35 per cent by 2010 At least 45 per cent by 2015

Table 39 shows that London’s municipal recycling rate has increased steadily over the previous nine years, increasing annually by two to four percentage points since 2002. The municipal recycling rate in 2009/10 was 27 per cent. Table 40 indicates that London’s household recycling rate also increased from 29% in 2008/09 to 32% in 2009/10, although London has a lower household recycling rate than any other region in England.

On a positive note, the total amount of municipal waste has continued to decrease. Although the most significant decrease was achieved in 2008/09, the total municipal waste generated in London realised a decrease of a further 2 per cent in 2009/10 from 4.0 million tonnes to 3.8 million tonnes.

**Table 39: London’s municipal waste recycling rate 1996/97 – 2009/10 (percentage)**

| Year | Household Recycling Rate | |----------|--------------------------| | 2000/1 | 8 | | 2001/2 | 8 | | 2002/3 | 9 | | 2003/4 | 11 | | 2004/5 | 15 | | 2005/6 | 18 | | 2006/7 | 20 | | 2007/8 | 22 | | 2008/9 | 25 | | 2009/10 | 27 |

Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2009, see [www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats](http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats) Table 40: Regional household recycling rates 2000/01 to 2009/10 (percentage)

| Region | 2000/01 | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | |-----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | North East | 4 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 15 | 21 | 26 | 28 | 31 | 35 | | North West | 8 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 19 | 24 | 29 | 33 | 37 | 39 | | Yorkshire & Humber | 7 | 9 | 11 | 15 | 19 | 22 | 27 | 31 | 34 | 37 | | East Midlands | 13 | 14 | 15 | 19 | 26 | 32 | 36 | 42 | 45 | 46 | | West Midlands | 9 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 20 | 25 | 29 | 33 | 37 | 40 | | East | 15 | 17 | 19 | 23 | 30 | 34 | 38 | 41 | 45 | 46 | | London | 9 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 18 | 21 | 23 | 26 | 29 | 32 | | South East | 16 | 18 | 20 | 23 | 26 | 29 | 33 | 36 | 38 | 40 | | South West | 15 | 17 | 19 | 21 | 27 | 31 | 37 | 40 | 42 | 44 | | England | 11 | 13 | 15 | 18 | 23 | 27 | 31 | 35 | 38 | 40 |

Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2009, see www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats

Table 41: Total municipal waste generated in London (millions of tones)

| Waste from: | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | |------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Regular household collection | 2,262 | 2,216 | 2,201 | 2,081 | 2,112 | 2,111 | 2,013 | 1,784 | 1,653 | | Other household sources | 310 | 298 | 274 | 306 | 277 | 256 | 247 | 236 | 252 | | Civic amenity sites | 519 | 497 | 411 | 328 | 250 | 246 | 230 | 190 | 140 | | Household recycling | 317 | 367 | 445 | 581 | 687 | 776 | 851 | 911 | 965 | | Total household\* | 3,408 | 3,379 | 3,331 | 3,297 | 3,326 | 3,390 | 3,342 | 3,122 | 3,035 | | Non household sources (excl. recycling) | 996 | 1,024 | 962 | 1,011 | 810 | 761 | 734 | 750 | 692 | | Non household recycling | 33 | 43 | 49 | 62 | 76 | 67 | 74 | 83 | 95 | | Total municipal waste | 4,438 | 4,446 | 4,342 | 4,370 | 4,213 | 4,218 | 4,149 | 3,955 | 3,847 |

Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2009, www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats

\*includes rejects from recycling, not listed

Key Performance Indicator 20 Increase in household waste recycled or composted

Target Achievement of quantified requirement for waste treatment facilities

The London Plan was reviewed after publication of ‘Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for sustainable waste management’. As part of this, each London borough was apportioned an amount of waste for which an appropriate amount of land must be identified to manage that waste. The sum total of waste to be managed across all the boroughs equates to 85% waste self-sufficiency for London as a whole. Individual borough apportionment targets are listed in Table 42. The Mayor is proposing updated waste arising and apportionment figures in the draft Replacement of the London Plan. To ensure that apportionment targets are met, Waste Development Plan Documents (DPD) are reviewed and commented on by the Mayor’s Planning Unit. Where boroughs are not a part of a strategic waste authority, apportionment is usually considered in their Core Strategies or supplementary Local Development Plan (LDF) documents. The status of London borough’s Waste DPDs and LDF documents is shown in Table 43.

Table 42: Waste to be managed in London apportioned by borough

| London borough | 2010 MSW C/I | 2015 MSW C/I | 2020 MSW C/I | |----------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | | total | total | total | | Barking/Dag | 145 | 357 | 502 | | Barnet | 61 | 150 | 210 | | Bexley | 131 | 323 | 454 | | Brent | 62 | 202 | 284 | | Bromley | 71 | 174 | 245 | | Camden | 58 | 143 | 201 | | City | 29 | 71 | 100 | | Croydon | 73 | 179 | 252 | | Ealing | 104 | 257 | 361 | | Enfield | 87 | 215 | 302 | | Greenwich | 96 | 237 | 334 | | Hackney | 59 | 146 | 205 | | Ham & Fulham | 71 | 176 | 247 | | Haringey | 54 | 132 | 186 | | Harrow | 52 | 128 | 180 | | Havering | 96 | 235 | 331 | | Hillingdon | 87 | 215 | 303 | | Hounslow | 85 | 208 | 293 | | Islington | 58 | 143 | 201 | | Kents & Chel | 58 | 143 | 201 | | Kingston | 47 | 117 | 164 | | Lambeth | 64 | 158 | 222 | | Lewisham | 60 | 148 | 208 | | Merton | 69 | 171 | 240 | | Newham | 118 | 290 | 407 | | Redbridge | 45 | 110 | 154 | | Richmond | 58 | 142 | 200 | | Southwark | 70 | 173 | 244 | | Sutton | 57 | 141 | 199 | | Tower Hamlets | 90 | 221 | 311 | | Waltham Forest | 57 | 141 | 199 | | Wandsworth | 91 | 224 | 314 | | Westminster | 36 | 89 | 125 |

Note: Boroughs preparing joint waste DPDs may wish to collaborate by pooling their apportionment requirements. Provided the aggregated total apportionment is met, it is not necessary for boroughs to meet both MSW and C/I apportionment figures individually.

Source: Jacobs UK Ltd (July 2007) for GLA | Planning document | Stage of development | Constituent Boroughs | Strategic Waste Authority | |-------------------|----------------------|----------------------|--------------------------| | Waste Development Plan Document | Submission to Secretary of State | Barking and Dagenham Havering Newham Redbridge | East London Waste Authority | | | Proposed submission | Barnet Camden Enfield Hackney Haringey Islington Waltham Forest | North London Waste Authority | | | Proposed submission | Croydon Kingston Merton Sutton | South London Waste Partnership | | | Proposed sites and policies | Brent Ealing Harrow Hillingdon Hounslow Richmond | West London Waste Authority | | Core Strategy | Proposed submission | Bexley | n/a | | | None scheduled | Bromley | | | | Submitted to Secretary of State | City of London | | | | Draft under consultation | Greenwich | | | | Proposed submission | Hammersmith and Fulham | | | | Adopted | Kensington & Chelsea | | | | Submission complete, to be adopted. Site Specific Allocations document in second draft | Lambeth | | | | Submitted to Secretary of State Site Specific Allocations document further options report submitted | Lewisham | | | | Submitted to Secretary of State | Southwark | | | | Adopted Development Plan document being developed | Tower Hamlets | |

### Key Performance Indicator 21:

Increased regional self-sufficiency for waste

**Target** 75 per cent (15 million tonnes) of London’s waste treated or disposed of within London by 2010

The GLA estimates that this target was met in 2008/09, with 78 per cent of London’s waste treated or disposed of within the capital. This position was maintained in 2009/10, at an estimated 79 per cent.

This achievement is heavily skewed to the construction, demolition and excavation (CDE) sector, which recycles approximately 82 per cent of its waste, with a further 11 per cent being landfilled within London. The other two primary waste sectors, commercial and industrial (C&I) and municipal waste generated less tonnage in 2009/10 than anticipated, however the amount of waste managed in London remained relatively the same as in the previous year.

To help achieve self-sufficiency, increased recycling and waste reduction targets, the Greater London Authority Act 2007 enabled the establishment of the London Waste and Recycling Board. The board’s objectives are to promote and encourage:

- the production of less waste;
- an increase in the proportion of waste reused and recycled; and
- the use of methods of collection, treatment and disposal that are more beneficial to the environment

The Board has an investment fund of up to £84 million over four years. This has been supplemented by a further £18 million in match funding from the European Regional Development fund, through the JESSICA scheme. This money will stimulate further increases in waste management capacity within London. Key Performance Indicator 22 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions

Target Reduce emissions to: 15% below 1990 levels by 2010 20% below 1990 levels by 2015 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 30% below 1990 levels by 2025

No new data are available since the last AMR was published, with the most recent measurement of London’s CO₂ emissions being the 2008 London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI). It is anticipated that data on carbon dioxide emissions will in the future be published annually, but two years in arrears given the analysis required. Information for assessing the 2010 benchmark will therefore only be available in 2012.

The LEGGI attributes CO₂ emissions to three sectors in London, based on either where the use of fuel occurred or, in the case of electricity, where it was consumed. These sectors are homes, workplaces and transport.

Table 44 London CO₂ Emissions 1990-2008

| CO₂ emissions [Million tonnes per year] | 1990 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2008 | % change | |----------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|----------| | Homes | 15.84| 17.54| 17.79| 17.95| 18.11| 17.87| 17.51| 17.07| 15.93| 1% | | Workplaces | 19.74| 25.04| 22.60| 21.98| 21.37| 22.17| 22.30| 21.51| 20.12| 2% | | Transport | 9.52 | 7.73 | 8.47 | 9.00 | 9.53 | 8.80 | 8.88 | 8.88 | 8.66 | -9% | | Total | 45.10| 50.31| 48.86| 48.93| 49.01| 48.84| 48.68| 47.45| 44.72| -1% |

Source: 2008 London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI).

Between 1990 and 2000 London’s CO₂ emissions increased by 12 per cent, from 45.1 MtCO₂ to 50.3 MtCO₂. Most of this growth was in the workplace sector as a result of a decade of steady growth in economic activity. Emissions from the homes sector also increased due to the growing population of London. From 2000 to 2006 the population of London increased by a further ten per cent. However the city’s emissions dropped by six per cent to 47.45 MtCO₂ per year in 2006. This is due to a number of factors, primarily the lower carbon content of the national electricity supply resulting from lower coal use in the generation mix, and the growing proportion of London’s economy accounted for by the service industry, which is less CO₂-intensive than manufacturing. In 2008 emissions were 44.72 MtCO₂ in total, which is a 1% reduction relative to 1990 levels.

The Mayor has proposed to strengthen the carbon emission reduction targets outlined above to reflect his greater ambition to reduce emissions. The 2025 target has doubled from 30% to a 60% reduction, meaning in 2025 London will aim to emit no more than 18.04 MtCO₂. The draft London Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy includes policies indicating how London will achieve these emissions reductions targets. Public consultation on the draft document ended on 5th January 2011. For more information see the Mayor’s website. This strategy is also supported by the draft Replacement London Plan which provides strategic planning policies to contribute to the more ambitious targets. Key Performance Indicator 23 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources

Target Production of 945GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2010 including at least six large wind turbines

No new data have been collected in the last two years so Table 45 has been retained from AMR 5. The GLA has commissioned a new study that will investigate the potential for renewable energy and also provide updated figures on the amount of current generation in London (the ‘London Renewable and Decentralised Energy Potential Study’). The study will be published in the spring of 2011 and will include the latest data and projections on renewable energy to feed into the development of the London Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy and implementation of the new London Plan.

The baseline position at 2001 was that London had capacity for 460GWh of renewable energy generation. This comprised; 414 GWh electricity generation and 46 GWh heat generation. The most recent figures from 2007 are shown in Table 45 below. These indicate 500 GWh of electricity and 50 GWh of heat generation.

Since this indicator was devised, new technologies and opportunities have become available. In this respect it has become clear that energy from renewable sources that were originally intended (such as wind turbines) will not contribute greatly to the target, but preliminary results from the London Renewable and Decentralised Energy Potential Study show that energy harnessed from London’s waste, particularly landfill gas, will make a larger than anticipated contribution to London’s energy needs. Table 45 Energy produced in London per annum from renewable sources

| Technology | 2001 Output Electricity (MWh) | 2007 Output Electricity (MWh) | 2001 Output Heat (MWh) | 2007 Output Heat (MWh) | 2001 Capacity Installed (MW) | 2007 Capacity Installed (MW) | |-----------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------| | PV \<50kWe | 380 (combined) | 3,085 | 4.101 | | | | | PV >50kWe | 90 | | 0.114 | | | | | Solar heating | | 3,042 | 4,305-14,985 | | 10.683-37.464\* | | | Biomass | | 3.975 | | | 0.2 | | | Biodegradable fraction of MSW incineration | 258,000 | 302,610 | | | 64 | | | Sewage Sludge incineration | 44 | 47,071 | | | 17.3 | | | Small/Micro Hydro | | 44 | | | | | | Landfill Gas | 64,000 | 119,358 | | | 18.182 | | | Sewage Gas | 49,000 | 21,102 | 42,500 | 30,600 | 6.78 | 14.571 | | Wind \<50kWe | 0.2 | 255 | | | 0.083 | | | Wind >50kWe | | 9,466 | | | 3.6 | 0.079 | | Commercial and Domestic Heat Pumps | 150,300 | 200,416 | 46,300 | 39,063-49,744 | 50.397 | 25.533-52.314 | | Total excluding MSW incineration | 414,300 | 503,207 | 46,300 | 39,063-49,744 | 114.397 | 25.533-52.314 |

- London estimate (from national figures) for solar heating installed as an output of government funding schemes \*\* Municipal solid waste Sources: London Renewable Energy Capacity Study (April draft). SEA/RENUE, 2007 (unpublished). London Wind & Biomass Study, Summary Report: Feasibility of the Potential for Stand Alone Wind and Biomass Plants in London (and supporting reports). SEA/RENUE, 2007

Key Performance Indicator 24 Ensure a sustainable approach to flood management.

Target No net loss of functional flood plain within referable applications.

Government policy on development and flood risk is laid out in Planning Policy Statement 25. The Environment Agency has confirmed that it is not aware of any development that has resulted in a net loss of functional flood plain (as defined by PPS25) over the past year (April 2009 to March 2010).

Functional flood plain is defined in PPS25 as Zone 3b. This is land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood and would flood with an annual probability of 1 in 20 (5%) or greater in any year, or is designed to flood in an extreme (0.1%) flood, or at another probability to be agreed between the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and the Environment Agency. However, as the majority of London is defended, only a very small area of functional flood plain exists within London. This is mainly associated with fluvial flood risk on the tributaries of the River Thames. In addition, PPS25 limits development in this zone to water-compatible uses and some essential infrastructure so loss of functional flood plain is unlikely. In the light of these facts, it is proposed to remove this target in the draft replacement London Plan. The Greater London Authority completed its Regional Flood Risk Appraisal in October 2009. Annex 7 provides an overview of progress regarding its recommendations. In addition Table 46 provides an overview of progress regarding Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs). All boroughs are required to produce a Level 1 SFRA. Most Level 1 SFRAs are complete or near completion.

Broadly, Level 1 and 2 SFRAs can be defined as follows:

A Level 1 SFRA provides information on flood risk, taking climate change into account, that allows the LPA to understand the risk across its area, provides the information needed to apply the sequential approach, informs sustainability appraisals, land allocations, development control policies and emergency planning and identifies the level of detail required for site specific FRAs.

A Level 2 SFRA considers the detailed nature of the flood hazard that facilitates application of the Sequential and Exception tests, allows a sequential approach to site allocation to be adopted within a flood zone and allows the policies and practices required to ensure that development in such areas satisfies the requirements of the Exception Test, to be identified for insertion into the Local Development Document.

| Borough | SFRA level 1 Required | SFRA level 1 Progress | SFRA level 2 Required | SFRA level 2 Progress | |--------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Barnet | Yes | Complete | Yes | No | | Bexley | Yes | Complete | Yes | Ongoing | | Brent | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Bromley | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Camden | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | City of London | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Croydon | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Ealing | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Enfield | Yes | Complete | Yes | Ongoing | | Greenwich | Yes | Advanced Draft | Yes | Ongoing | | Hackney | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Hammersmith and Fulham | Yes | Advanced Draft | Yes | Advanced draft | | Haringey | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Harrow | Yes | Complete | Yes | Ongoing | | Havering | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Hillingdon | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Hounslow | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Islington | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Kensington and Chelsea | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Kingston upon Thames | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Lambeth | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Lewisham | Yes | Complete | Yes | Ongoing | | Merton | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Newham | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Borough | SFRA level 1 Required | SFRA level 1 Progress | SFRA level 2 Required | SFRA level 2 Progress | |----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------| | Redbridge | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Richmond upon Thames | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Southwark | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Sutton | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Tower Hamlets | Yes | Complete | Yes | EA-advised revision about to commence | | Waltham Forest | Yes | Complete | Yes | Ongoing | | Wandsworth | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Westminster | Yes | Advanced draft | Yes | Ongoing |

Source: Environment Agency

**Key Performance Indicator 25** Protecting and improving London’s heritage and public realm

**Target** Reduction in the proportion of buildings at risk as a percentage of the total number of listed buildings in London

Although there has been a small increase in the number of buildings at risk in London during 09/10, it is not significant and is not expected to affect the overall downward trend which has been established over the past few years.

The 2010 Heritage at Risk Register, and a summary document covering all categories (not just listed buildings) can be found at [http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/](http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/). A recently released review looking back over 20 years of Heritage at Risk in London can be found at [http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/saving-london/](http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/saving-london/).

At April 2010, London had 1,002 Conservation Areas. 32 of London’s 33 boroughs have taken part in English Heritage’s national survey of conservation areas at risk, resulting in 72 being considered as being “at risk” - approximately 7%.

**Table 47 Proportion of Listed Building entries at Risk in London**

| | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |--------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Total Number of Listed Buildings | 18,274 | 18,316 | 18,3482 | 18,390 | 18,461 | 18,479 | 18,618 | | Number of Listed Buildings At Risk | 563 | 556 | 532 | 516 | 487 | 486 | 494 | | Proportion at Risk | 3.08% | 3.03% | 2.89% | 2.80% | 2.63% | 2.63% | 2.65% |

Source: English Heritage

The Number of Listed Building and the number At Risk exclude Scheduled Ancient Monuments and cemeteries and churchyards. Appendix 2 – Contextual Indicators

Chapter 6 of the London Plan indicated a number of contextual indicators relating to London’s development, economy, environment, social and health status. The main part of the Annual Monitoring Report sets the overall context for London. There is also a huge amount of data available from both the GLA and other sources. The list of references and links below should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data.

Briefings from the GLA Data Management and Analysis Group

| Reference | Briefing Name | Month of publication | |-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | 2010 01 | Claimant Count Model: 2010 Technical Note | February | | 2010 02 | CIN 2010-11 | | | 2010 03 | London Parliamentary Constituency Profiles 2010 | March | | 2010 04 | Pilot pan-London School Rolls Projections by cluster | | | 2010 05 | London Borough Fertility Rates 2005-07 | August | | 2010-06 | Towards Defining a Healthy Living Income Standard for London | | | 2010-07 | London Crime: A National Picture | October | | 2010-08 | Disabled people and the labour market in London, 2009 | December |

Updates

| Reference | Title | Month of publication | |-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | 01-2010 | The London Plan: Borough Demographic Projections | January | | 02-2010 | PayCheck 2009 | January | | 03-2010 | Unemployment in London – January 2010 | February | | 04-2010 | The London Plan Ethnic Group Population Projections | March | | 05-2010 | Personal Incomes of UK Tax-Payers in 2007/2008: Survey of Personal Incomes | | | 06-2010 | Migration Indicators: February 2010 | April | | 07-2010 | The Working-Age Client Group in London – August 2010 | February | | 08-2010 | 2009 Round Demographic Projections for the London Plan | April | | 09-2010 | Infant Mortality 2002 to 2008 | May | | 10-2010 | Poverty figures for London: 2008/09 | May | | 11-2010 | ONS 2009 Provisional Births | June | | 12-2010 | ONS 2002-2008 Revised Mid Year Population Estimates | June | | 13-2010 | ONS 2008-based Subnational Population Projections | June | | 14-2010 | Mid-2009 population estimates | June | | 15-2010 | Unemployment in London: July 2010 | August | | 16-2010 | 2009 Round Demographic Projections for the London Plan (revised) | August | | 17-2010 | 2009 Round Demographic Projections using the SHLAA | August | | 18-2010 | Births by birthplace of mother 2009 | September | | 19-2010 | Migration Indicators: August 2010 | September | | 20-2010 | Worklessness in London | September | | Reference | Title | Month of publication | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | 21-2010 | Population by country of birth and nationality: 2009 | October | | 22-2010 | Children in Poverty | October | | 23-2010 | Life Expectancy at Birth 2007-09 | October | | 24-2010 | Revised 2009 Ethnic Group Population Projections | November | | 25-2010 | Income Poverty at Small Area Level | November | | 26-2010 | London’s Migration Flows with the rest of the UK: 2007 to 2009 | November | | 27-2010 | CLC 2008-based Household Projections | November | | 28-2010 | Life Opportunities Survey - Interim Results | December | | 29-2010 | Migration Indicators November 2010 | December | | 30-2010 | PayCheck 2010 | December |

A full list of DMAG publications from previous years is available via the GLA’s website at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/society/facts-and-figures](http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/society/facts-and-figures)

**London Development Database** For more information on the London Development database either [Email the LDD Team](mailto:) or phone 0207 983 4650. The LDD public page can be found at [http://ldd.london.gov.uk/LDD/LDD/welcome.do](http://ldd.london.gov.uk/LDD/LDD/welcome.do)

**Planning Decisions Unit** More information on the activities of the Mayor’s Planning Decisions Unit can be found at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/strategic-planning-applications/mayoral-planning-decision/mayors-planning-decisions](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/strategic-planning-applications/mayoral-planning-decision/mayors-planning-decisions)

**GLA Economics reports** These are still available at [http://www.london.gov.uk/gla-economics-publications](http://www.london.gov.uk/gla-economics-publications) For the latest news the Mayor’s Business and Economy section can be found at [http://www.london.gov.uk/landing-page/business-economy](http://www.london.gov.uk/landing-page/business-economy)

**London Sustainable Development Commission** [http://www.londonsdc.org/](http://www.londonsdc.org/)

**London Energy Partnership** Full details can be found on the website [http://www.lep.org.uk/](http://www.lep.org.uk/)

**Other data sources**

**Waste** The Mayor’s Draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy can be found at [http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/waste/index.jsp](http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/waste/index.jsp) DEFRA produces Municipal Waste Management statistics covering the previous financial year [http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats/bulletin09.htm](http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats/bulletin09.htm) More up to date London specific data is available on the Capital Waste Facts website [http://www.capitalwastefacts.com/](http://www.capitalwastefacts.com/) Waterways The London Rivers Action Plan can be found at: http://www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php

Transport data The latest information on The Mayor’s work on transport can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/transport Transport for London performance statistics can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/publications/1482.aspx and Annual Report | Transport for London The Department for Transport (Transport statistics) provides some useful data on transport

Department for Education Various data and studies on education and skills can be found at the following site: http://www.education.gov.uk/, which contains a section on Research and Statistics Details of the indicators for “Attainment and Outcomes” can still be found at: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/trends/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showCategory&cid=5.

Ofsted Links to a number of national reports on education provision can be found at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Various data and studies on the environment can be found on the DEFRA site http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/index.htm

Department for Communities and Local Government CLG publishes a number of statistics relating to planning at http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/245410 Specific information about London can be found on The Places Database. http://www.places.communities.gov.uk/latestnews.aspx

## Appendix 3 - Schedule of Progress on Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification

| Name of Location | Progress\* | |------------------|-----------| | **North London** | | | King’s Cross | Northern ticket hall open at King’s Cross St. Pancras Underground. Work on the Boulevard and Goods Way has commenced and anticipated for completion in 2011 connecting the University of the Arts Central Saint Martins campus directly to the King’s Cross transport hub. | | Paddington | Span 4 of Paddington Station refurbishment ongoing. Works to implement Crossrail have begun. 33,000 sqm B1 business space completed. | | Euston | Euston Area Planning Framework adopted by borough April 2009. Initial discussions with LB Camden regarding potential work on OAPF relating in particular to HS2. | | Tottenham Court Road | Urban Design Framework has been produced. Opportunity Area Planning Framework not being pursued. | | Victoria | 103 net residential completions. | | Upper Lee Valley including Tottenham Hale | Opportunity Area Planning Framework currently being produced in house by the GLA working closely with the Boroughs of Enfield, Hackney, Haringey and Waltham Forest and the Lea Valley Park Authority. Stakeholder consultation January 2011 with public consultation later in the year. Target adoption date, 2011. 581 net residential units completed. | | Cricklewood/Brent Cross | Outline Planning Consent was issued by the Local Planning Authority on 28 October 2010. | | Colindale | Borough Area Action Plan (AAP) for Colindale was adopted in March 2010. Outline consent granted for hospital site. Beaufort Park later phases under construction. | | Arsenal/Holloway | Largely completed. Planning permission for Queensland Road approved. | | Mill Hill East | Borough Area Action Plan (AAP) adopted. Outline application being considered. | | Haringey Heartlands/Wood Green | Planning application for development across the remainder of the site to be determined. Expected 2011. | | West Hampstead interchange | No planning Framework in place. Substantial technical issues development over rail lands and with rail franchise holders. | | Holborn | See Tottenham Court Road | | Farringdon/Smithfield | Crossrail station construction work in progress with connection to Thameslink. Islington Council consulting on Bunhill/Farringdon Area Action Plan. | | **North East London** | | | Isle of Dogs | 1,488 net residential completions and 1,800 sqm retail floorspace. | | Name of Location | Progress\* | |----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | City Fringe | Opportunity Area Planning Framework to be produced in 2011 subject to pooling resources with boroughs. 841 net residential, 7,800 sqm retail (A1-A5) and 36,600 sqm office floorspace completed. | | Lower Lea Valley, inc Stratford | Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance being produced in house by the GLA working closely with the four host boroughs. Target adoption date, 2011. 705 net residential and 14,700 sqm B1 office completed. | | Royal Docks | Newham Council consulting on Core Strategy which includes proposals for the Royals. New pre-application discussions underway on Minoco Wharf. 989 net residential units completed and 71,000 sqm industrial and warehousing floorspace completed. | | London Riverside | Opportunity Area Planning Framework currently being produced jointly by the GLA and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation in partnership with the LDA, TfL and the Boroughs of Newham, Barking & Dagenham and Havering. Target adoption date, 2011. 291 net residential units completed. | | Ilford | Action Area Plan produced in 2006. 218 net residential units completed. | | **South East London** | | | London Bridge | Net increase of 58,850 B1 office space completed - majority at More London, 111 net housing units were completed over 16 schemes. Shard of Glass development under construction. Southwark Council consulted on a draft Borough, Bankside and London Bridge Supplementary Planning Document from January to March 2010 and again from September to October. | | Elephant and Castle | A new teaching, health and social care centre on the campus of London South Bank University was completed in 2009/2010. In July 2010 Southwark Council signed a development agreement to pave the way for the transformation of the Elephant and Castle over the next 15 years. Southwark Council preparing supplementary planning document for the Elephant and Castle for consultation. | | Deptford Creek/ Greenwich Riverside | Design for London produced a design framework. 109 net residential units completed. | | Lewisham- Catford – New Cross | LB Lewisham using the North Lewisham Framework as the basis for the AAP. 411 net residential units completed. | | Greenwich Peninsula & Charlton Riverside West | Planning permission granted 2003. Implementation now underway. 248 net residential units and 40,800 sqm B1 office floorspace completed. | | Woolwich, Thamesmead & Charlton Riverside East | Docklands Light Railway extension opened at Woolwich Arsenal in 2009. Up to 1,000 new homes have been developed at the Royal Arsenal. A further 2,000 homes have been built in Gallions Reach Urban Village in Thamesmead. | | Name of Location | Progress\* | |----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Bexley Riverside | A Framework Plan and Regeneration Strategy has been developed for Erith Town Centre and Belvedere and a development brief has been prepared for the Erith Western Gateway sites. | | Canada Water/Surrey Quays | Area Action Plan prepared. Overall increase of B1 and A1 floor space and 63 residential units in a mix of conversions and new builds. | | Kidbrooke | Greenwich Council approved detailed proposals for Phase 1 of the regeneration on the site east of Sutcliffe Park including 449 houses and apartments. Building started in September 2009. Legal agreement signed for mixed use redevelopment proposals. | | **South West London** | | | Waterloo | In March 2010, Lambeth Council prepared interim planning guidance for the former Waterloo International Terminal in advance of full guidance for the entire station site in the Waterloo Interchange Development Brief – consultation in 2011. Waterloo City Square project (one of the Mayor’s ‘Great Spaces’) has been subject to a design competition with target delivery date 2012-2015. | | Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea | Development Infrastructure Study completed, which will inform the final version of the OAPF. 258 net residential units completed and 436 hotel bedrooms. Battersea Power Station redevelopment approved by Mayor of London and Wandsworth Council – permission granted for 3400 homes, a hotel, cinema and office and retail floorspace. | | Croydon | Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) to be produced in partnership with the borough – target publication date 2011. | | South Wimbledon/Colliers Wood | Merton Council submitted Core Strategy to the Secretary of State. Hearing element of Examination in February 2011. | | **West London** | | | Heathrow (including Hayes, West Drayton, Southall, Feltham, Bedfont Lakes and Hounslow) | Opportunity Area Planning Framework being considered with potential initiation in 2011, working with local authorities and other stakeholders including BAA. 214 net residential units completed and 223 hotel bedrooms. | | Park Royal/Willesden Junction | Final version published in 2011. 19,000 B1 office floorspace completed. | | Wembley | Revised masterplans complete (2009). New Brent Civic Centre application approved. 236 net residential units completed. | | White City | Opportunity Area Planning Framework currently being produced in house in collaboration with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Target adoption date, 2011. |

- Note that information on completions relates to Financial Year 2009/10, sourced from the London Development Database) Appendix 4 - National Regional Planning Guidance Indicators

The DCLG published a set of Core Output Indicators for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks. The GLA is not required to report on these indicators, but the list below sets out the indicators and how the information can be gathered for the London Plan area.

| No. | National Indicator | London Plan Approach | |-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | **Business Development** | | | BD1 | Total amount of additional employment floorspace by type | See borough AMRs KPI 7 for office provision in Central London | | BD2 | Total amount of employment floorspace on previously developed land – by type | See borough AMRs | | BD3 | Employment land available – by type | See borough AMRs | | BD4 | Total amount of floorspace for town centre uses. | See borough AMRs | | | **Housing** | | | H1 | Plan period and housing targets | See borough AMRs | | H2(a)| Net additional dwellings – in previous years | KPI 4 | | H2(b)| Net additional dwellings – for the reporting year | KPI 4 | | H2(c)| Net additional dwellings – for future years | See borough AMRs | | H3 | New and converted dwellings – on previously developed land | KPI 1 | | H4 | Net additional pitches –(Gypsy and traveller) | Appendix 8 | | H5 | Cross affordable housing completions | KPI 5 | | H6 | Housing quality – Building for Life Assessments | See borough AMRs | | | **Environmental Quality** | | | E1 | Number of planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice on flooding and water quality grounds | KPI 24 (Does not include details of development adversely affecting water quality) | | E2 | Change in areas of biodiversity importance | KPI 18 | | E3 | Renewable energy generation | KPI 23 | | | **Minerals** | | | M1 | Production of primary land won aggregates by mineral planning authority | See borough AMRs | | M2 | Production of secondary and recycled aggregates by mineral planning authority | See borough AMRs | | | **Waste** | | | W1 | Capacity of new waste management facilities by waste planning authority | See borough AMRs | | W2 | Amount of municipal waste arising, and managed by management type by waste planning authority | See borough AMRs |

## Appendix 5 - Mayoral activity on Development Plans

Summary of activity on Borough Development Plans during 2010.

| Area | DPDs | |-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | Site Specific Allocations, proposed changes to submission | | | Barking Town Centre AAP Proposed changes to submission | | Barnet | Site Specific Allocations DPD Statement of general conformity | | | Core Strategy Submission | | | Development Management Policies DPD | | Bexley | Core Strategy Preferred Approach | | | Core Strategy Pre-submission | | Brent | Local Development Scheme | | Bromley | Draft Planning Obligations SPD | | Camden | Site Allocations DPD Preferred approach | | | Core Strategy Submission Statement of general conformity | | | Development Policies DPD Statement of general conformity | | City of London | Core Strategy Pre-submission | | Croydon | Core Strategy Preferred Options | | | Core Strategy Preferred Options II | | Ealing | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Pre-Submission | | | Development Management DPD Initial Proposals | | | Development Sites DPD Initial Proposals | | Enfield | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy | | | Ponders End Central Planning Brief SPD | | Greenwich | Local Development Scheme | | Hackney | Local Development Scheme | | | Hackney Wick draft AAP | | | Core Strategy pre submission and proposals map DPD | | | Core Strategy Statement of Common Ground | | | Local Development Scheme | | Hammersmith & Fulham | General Development Management Policy Options | | | Core Strategy Submission | | Haringey | Local Development Scheme | | | Development Management Policies and Site Allocations DPD | | | Core Strategy Submission | | | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Additional Reg 27 consultation | | Harrow | Core Strategy Pre-submission | | | Local Development Scheme | | Havering | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Pre-Submission | | Hillingdon | Core Strategy Preferred Options | | | Planning Obligations SPD | | Area | DPDs | |----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Islington | Core Strategy Changes to submission | | | Core Strategy Statement of General Conformity | | | Core Strategy Submission | | | Core Strategy post- submission changes | | | Local Development Scheme | | Kensington & Chelsea | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Revised Statement of General conformity | | Kingston upon Thames | Core Strategy Preferred Options | | Lambeth | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Update (Crossrail) | | Lewisham | Core Strategy submission | | | Local Development Scheme | | | Site Allocations DPD further Options | | Merton | Core Strategy pre- submission | | Newham | Core Strategy DPD Issues and Options | | Redbridge | Crossrail AAP Pre –submission | | Richmond | Development Management Plan Pre submission | | | Development Management Plan proposed submission | | Southwark | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Submission | | | Canada Water AAP Submission | | | Core Strategy Further Representations on general conformity | | | Core Strategy Further Representations | | Sutton | Site Development Policies submission | | Tower Hamlets | Local Development Scheme | | Waltham Forest | Core Strategy Preferred Options | | Wandsworth | Development Management Policies DPD Preferred Options | | | Site Specific Allocations DPD Preferred Options | | | Changes to tall buildings policy | | | Development Management Policies | | | Site Specific Allocations DPD | | Westminster | Core Strategy Supplementary Statement on Waste, Statement of Common Ground | | | Draft Planning Brief for Victoria Area SPD | | East London | Waste DPD | | South London | South East London Boroughs Joint Waste Technical Paper | | | South London Waste DPD Additional Sites consultation | Appendix 6 - Affordability Thresholds for Social and Intermediate housing

This Appendix relates to Policy 3A.8 of the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations Since 2004 (Paragraph 3.37) and updates the affordability thresholds as at February 2011.

Intermediate Housing

Intermediate provision is sub-market housing, where costs, including service charges, are above target rents for social housing, but where costs, including service charges, are affordable by households on incomes of less than £64,000(^6). This figure has been up-dated from the London Plan (2008) figure of £52,500 on the basis of the latest data (as of February 2011) on lower quartile house prices in London, and is an increase from the figure of £57,600 in AMR 6.

In his statutory London Housing Strategy and his draft replacement London Plan, the Mayor sets out his intention to raise the intermediate housing income threshold to £74,000 for households with dependents, in order to reflect the higher cost of both developing and buying family-sized homes in London.

Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision (including the new affordable rent product) and market provision, including key worker provision, where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements.

For the criterion that provision is affordable to be met, the purchase price must be no greater than 3.5 times the household income limit specified above (i.e. no greater than £224,000), or (for products where a rent is paid) the annual housing costs, including rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income (this is to reflect a different level of disposable income, relative to lower income households dependent on social housing). In the case of two or multiple income households, lenders will generally lend at lower multipliers in relation to incomes of household members other than the highest income earner, and consequently market access will generally be more restricted for such households.

Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that intermediate provision provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes measured by number of bedrooms.

Affordable rent

Government has recently published for consultation a draft planning definition of its new affordable rent product. It is proposed that affordable rent homes will be let at rents of up to 80% of market rent, and on tenancies of a minimum of two years.

______________________________________________________________________

(^6) The income threshold for intermediate housing is currently set at a different level for planning and housing investment purposes. Under the Homes and Communities Agency investment criteria, the upper income level for intermediate housing is £60,000. Appendix 7 - Progress on Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) Recommendations

The RFRA was published in October 2009 and contained 19 recommendations that will be followed up over the next 5 years.

| No. | Recommendation | Progress at Jan 2011 | |-----|----------------|----------------------| | 1 | All Thames-side planning authorities should consider in their SFRAs and put in place DPD policies to promote the setting back of development from the edge of the Thames and tidal tributaries to enable sustainable and cost effective upgrade of river walls/embankments, in line with Policy 5.12, CFMPs and TE2100 | Limited progress through DPDs. Increasingly Thames-side developments are incorporating set back, for example Enderby Wharf, Greenwich. The Boroughs of Richmond and Wandsworth have specific planning policies to address this. | | 2 | The London Boroughs of Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Wandsworth should put in place policies to avoid development that would prejudice the implementation of increased channel capacity between Teddington Lock and Hammersmith Bridge in line with TE2100 findings | The Environment Agency (EA) published Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan in Dec 2009 and is awaiting Government approval/funding for the TE2100 project. - The EA was also due to publish the Lower Thames Strategy in 2010 – their Board has signed off the project and it is awaiting Defra sign off in 2011. The Boroughs of Richmond and Wandsworth have specific planning policies to address this. | | 3 | The London Boroughs of Havering and Bexley should put in place policies to prevent development that would prejudice the use of Rainham/Wennington Marshes, Erith Marshes and Dartford/Crayford Marshes for emergency flood storage in line with TE2100 findings. Although outside London, Thurrock and Dartford should also consider this aspect of flood risk management | EA is awaiting Government approval/funding for TE2100 project. | | 4 | Boroughs at confluences of tributary rivers with the River Thames should pay particular attention to the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risks. These are Havering, Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow, Richmond and Kingston | Need to explore further if combined events are addressed the relevant Boroughs. | | 5 | Developments all across London should reduce surface water discharge in line with the Sustainable Drainage Hierarchy set out in Policy 5.13 of the draft replacement London Plan | Progressing well for large scale developments but limited for smaller scale development. | | 6 | Regeneration and redevelopment of London’s fluvial river corridors offer a crucial opportunity to reduce flood risk. SFRAs and policies should focus on making the most of this opportunity through appropriate location, layout and design of development as set out in PPS25 and the Thames CFMP. | Generally being implemented through application of PPS25. Enfield for example have incorporated flood risk into the layout and design of major redevelopment proposals along the River Lee. | | No. | Recommendation | Progress at Jan 2011 | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 7 | Once funding is confirmed Drain London will investigate and plan for long term management of London’s surface water infrastructure in order to reduce surface water flood risk. | Drain London project is underway. Surface Water Management Plans will be produced for each Borough by April 2011 and initial measures such as Community Flood Plans and Green Roofs will be pursued throughout 2011. | | 8 | Organisations responsible for development with large roof areas should investigate providing additional surface water run-off storage | No specific actions yet, but progress underway in relation to surface water at Victoria Station. And the GLA will contact TfL and Network Rail regarding other stations. | | 9 | Thames Water to continue the programme of addressing foul sewer flooding | Future funding reduced through OfWat settlement, but initial work underway in relation to Counters Creek sewer in west London. | | 10 | That groundwater flood risk is kept under review | Through Drain London, but needs regular review. | | 11 | Network Rail should examine the London Rail infrastructure for potential flooding locations and flood risk reduction measures. For large stations, solutions should be sought to store or disperse rainwater from heavy storms; this may involve the need for off site storage | Network Rail contacted through Drain London, GLA will follow up in 2011. | | 12 | London Underground and DLR should keep potential flood risks to their infrastructure and flood risk reduction measures under review and up to date | Through Drain London, but needs regular review. | | 13 | TfL, Highways Agency and London boroughs should continue to monitor the flood risk and flood risk reduction measures at these locations (subterranean river crossings and road underpasses – RFRA para 148) and any others with a potential flood risk | Through Drain London, but needs regular review. | | 14 | Bus operators should examine bus garages for potential flood risks and put in place remedial or mitigation measures where there is a significant risk | No specific actions yet. | | 15 | Edgware Hospital should carry out a flood risk assessment of its current premises and determine any mitigation works necessary to ensure that the hospital can continue to operate in the event of a flood on the Silk Stream | No specific actions yet. GLA will contact NHS following Drain London outcomes. | | 16 | Other hospitals in the RFRA table (para 153) should examine how they may cope in the event of a major flood | No specific actions yet, but GLA will contact NHS following Drain London outcomes. | | 17 | The National Offender Management Service should ensure that there is an emergency plan for Belmarsh Prison in the event of a major flood | No specific actions yet, but GLA will contact NOMS following Drain London outcomes. | | No. | Recommendation | Progress at Jan 2011 | |-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 18 | Operators of London’s emergency services should ensure that emergency plans for flooding incidents are kept up to date and suitable cover arrangements are in place in the event of a flood effecting operational locations | Drain London outputs will inform new London Resilience Government Liaison Team being established at City Hall to replace the GoL chaired London Resilience Team. | | 19 | Operators of electricity, gas, water and sewerage utility sites should maintain an up to date assessment of the flood risk to their installations and considering the likely impacts of failure, programme any necessary protection measures, this may include secondary flood defences | No specific actions yet, but GLA will contact utility companies following Drain London outcomes. | Appendix 8 - Housing Provision in London 2009/10: Annual Monitor

Introduction This report provides further detail on housing provision in London in addition to the tables in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report. It is based largely on data provided by London boroughs to the London Development Database (LDD) maintained by the GLA. The LDD was established with government support and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London.

The majority of this report deals with housing provision defined for the purpose of monitoring the London Plan: that is, net conventional supply from new build, conversions or changes of use. The Mayor’s London Housing Strategy sets out a separate and distinctly defined target for affordable housing delivery, comprising the gross number of affordable homes delivered through conventional supply or acquisitions of existing properties. The final section of this report covers affordable housing delivery according to this latter definition.

Maps and tables can be found at the end of the report.

Key points

- There were 24,290 net conventional housing completions in London in 2009/10, but total housing provision was lower at 23,641 due to an increase in the estimated number of long-term empty homes.
- The net conventional supply of 24,290 in 2009/10 is the lowest since 2003 but still above the long-term annual average.
- New build accounted for 81% of net conventional supply in 2009/10, conversions 8% and changes of use 11%.
- Over the last three years net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 29,889 homes, split almost evenly between social rented and intermediate housing.
- Across all tenures, gross conventional housing was dominated by one or two bedroom homes, with only 18% having three bedrooms or more.
- Just over one third of social housing supply comprises homes with three or more bedrooms, compared to 14% of market homes and only 8% of intermediate homes.
- 27% of net approvals and 32% of net starts in 2009/10 were for affordable housing.
- As of 31 March 2010, there were a net 111,990 homes not started and 60,056 under construction, for a total pipeline of 172,046 homes.

Total housing provision Total housing provision in the London Plan consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non self-contained bedspaces, and long-term vacant homes returning to use. Table 19 in the main body of the report shows housing provision at borough and sub-regional level. Table HPM 1 in this appendix replicates these figures but in alphabetical order (see also Map HPM 1 and Map HPM 2).

Conventional housing supply typically comprises the majority of total housing provision, but in 2009/10 net conventional completions (24,290) were actually higher than total housing provision (23,641), due to a substantial increase (of 2,841) in the estimated number of long-term vacant homes. The chart below shows the separate elements of total housing provision for the last five years. In 2005/06 and 2006/07 vacants returning to use were strongly positive, in the following two years slightly negative, and in 2009/10 strongly negative. The estimates of long-term vacant homes returning to use are derived from the change in the number of private sector homes vacant for six months or more, as reported to government by London boroughs through the Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix form. These data are typically quite volatile – for example, Haringey reported 1,008 long-term vacant private sector homes in 2007/8, 88 in 2008/9 and 1,286 in 2009/10. It can also be patchy, with some boroughs not reporting figures in every year.

The government also collects estimates of homes in all tenures that have been empty for six months or more through council tax dwellings lists reported by local authorities, and CLG have recently published a table drawing on this data. Table HPM2 shows estimates of long-term vacant homes and the change between 2009 and 2010 according to HSSA and council tax data. The two sources are not strictly comparable, as HSSA data covers private sector homes only while the council tax data covers all sectors, and because the HSSA data is reported as of April each year while council tax data is reported as of October. But it is still notable that the council tax data is less volatile than the HSSA data, and shows a different overall trend (a decrease in the number of long-term vacant homes between 2009 and 2010 rather than an increase). The GLA are considering adopting the council tax data for future monitoring purposes.

Gypsy and traveller sites Since 1st April 2009 the LDD has been recording the loss and gain of gypsy and traveller pitches. During 2009/10 two permissions were granted for additional pitches. Three additional pitches were proposed in the reconfiguration of the existing site at Swallow Park, Kingston and two pitches were given permission for a further three years at a site off Church Road in Havering. The latter, being the renewal of a previous temporary permission, is recorded as a completion on LDD, although Havering record no additional pitches in their AMR. A survey of the 27 borough AMR’s available online at the end of January 2011 show that there were no additional gypsy and traveller pitches completed during 2009/10 in London.

______________________________________________________________________

7 Data here: http://is.gd/hssabpsa 8 Three boroughs did not report figures in 2010. One of these (Kensington and Chelsea) subsequently provided an estimate to GLA, while the remaining two (Lewisham and Merton) did not; GLA therefore assumed no change in long-term vacants for these two boroughs. 9 Live table 615 here: http://is.gd/clgstocktables Conventional supply As stated above, conventional housing supply comprises the bulk of total housing provision in London. Estimates of net conventional housing supply in London since 1987 are shown in the chart below(^\\text{10}). Data from 1987 to 2003 are from the GLA’s Housing Provision Survey, which was based on aggregate estimates provided by boroughs, while 2003/04 onwards is based on site-specific records from the LDD. The net conventional supply of 24,290 in 2009/10 is the lowest since 2003 but still above the long-term annual average.

Figure HPM 2 Net Conventional Housing supply 1987 – 2009/10

Source: GLA

Net conventional supply takes account of dwellings lost or replaced. In 2009/10 there was a gross conventional supply of 28,733 homes, with 4,443 lost or replaced (see Table HPM 3). Areas where large-scale estate redevelopment is taking place can show high gross but low net supply: for example, Waltham Forest had a gross supply of 498 homes in 2009/10 but 357 of these were simply replacing other homes, for a net supply of 141.

The table also compares net conventional supply in each borough with the conventional component of its current London Plan housing provision target. Performance against the target varies from 18% in Barking and Dagenham to 227% in Wandsworth.

There are three types of conventional housing supply recorded in the LDD: new build, conversions and changes of use (for example, from industrial or commercial uses). Table HPM 4 shows gross and net conventional supply by type for each borough. Across London, new build accounted for 81% of net conventional supply in 2009/10, conversions 8% and changes of use 11%. The mix varied widely between boroughs, however. Notably, 65% of Greenwich’s net conventional supply of 548 came from change of use, while 31% of supply in Enfield was from conversions. Kensington and Chelsea was the only borough with negative supply from conversions, implying that in this extremely high-cost area conversions of houses into flats were outnumbered by ‘de-conversions’ of flats into houses.

Affordable housing supply Table 24 and Figure 3 in the main body of the report show net conventional completions of affordable housing by borough and sub-region. Table HPM 5 breaks affordable housing supply

(^{10}) The time series switches from calendar years to financial years in 2003/04, reflecting the change in sources. between 2007/08 and 2009/10 into social rented and intermediate housing\\textsuperscript{11}, while Map HPM 3 shows affordable housing supply in 2007/08 and 2009/10 as a proportion of total net conventional supply.

Over the three-year period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 29,979 homes, split almost evenly between social rented and intermediate housing. This split varied widely between boroughs, with social housing accounting for only 11% of affordable supply in Wandsworth but 81% in Westminster.

**Size mix of new supply**

Table HPM 6 shows the split of total gross conventional supply across London as a whole by tenure and number of bedrooms (the figures are presented in gross terms as the number of bedrooms is not always readily available for homes lost or replaced). The profile of new social housing supply is quite different from that of intermediate or market supply: just over one third of social housing supply comprises homes with three or more bedrooms, compared to 14% of market homes and only 8% of intermediate homes. Across all tenures, new supply was dominated by one or two bedroom homes, with only 18% having three bedrooms or more.

Table HPM 7 shows the gross conventional supply of affordable housing (i.e. comprising both social rented and intermediate housing) by borough and number of bedrooms. The highest proportion of homes with three or more bedrooms was found in Kingston upon Thames and Kensington and Chelsea, but in both cases was based on very low overall totals. The three boroughs with the largest absolute supply of affordable homes with three bedrooms or more were Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Southwark.

**The pipeline of new homes**

The ‘pipeline’ of anticipated future housing supply comprises homes which have been granted planning permission but not yet completed, and can be broken down into homes under construction and those for which construction has not yet started. It should be noted here that in the LDD a ‘start’ may not be the start of physical construction work on site but simply a legal start (such as demolition of existing homes).

The annual flow of planning approvals for new homes adds to the pipeline. Table 21 in the main report shows the trend in net approvals at London level since 2000/01, while Table HPM 8 breaks down 2009/10 net approvals by tenure and Table HPM 9 by type. At London level 27% of net approvals in 2009/10 were for affordable housing, again split very evenly between intermediate and social housing. It should be noted that the tenure of approved units can change before completion (for example as the result of negotiations between developers and planning authorities), and some approvals may ultimately not be built out.

Table HPM 10 shows net conventional housing starts by tenure and Table HPM 11 by type. In 2009/10, 32% of net starts were affordable housing, compared to 27% of approvals and 37% of completions (Table 24 in the main report). New build comprises the majority of both approvals and starts.

Finally, Table HPM 12 and Map 3 show the planning pipeline as of 31\\textsuperscript{st} March 2010, comprising units approved but not started and those under construction. There were a net 111,990 homes not started and 60,056 under construction, for a total pipeline of 172,046. Just three boroughs (Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and Newham) accounted for just over one third of the London total. At the other end of the scale, three boroughs (the City of London, Kingston Upon Thames and Richmond Upon Thames) accounted for a total pipeline of less than 3,000 homes between them.

\\textsuperscript{11} These categories are defined in the London Plan. | Borough | Conventional | Non self-contained | Vacancies returning to use | Total | Target | Delivery (% of Target) | |-------------------------|--------------|--------------------|----------------------------|-------|--------|------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 210 | 0 | -380 | -170 | 1,190 | N/A | | Barnet | 671 | 0 | 402 | 1,073 | 2,055 | 52% | | Bexley | 357 | -7 | 95 | 445 | 345 | 129% | | Brent | 808 | -17 | -53 | 738 | 1,120 | 66% | | Bromley | 553 | -7 | 285 | 831 | 485 | 171% | | Camden | 421 | 46 | -18 | 449 | 595 | 75% | | City of London | 41 | 0 | 22 | 63 | 90 | 70% | | Croydon | 1,371 | 1 | -346 | 1,026 | 1,100 | 93% | | Ealing | 499 | -22 | -134 | 343 | 915 | 37% | | Enfield | 277 | -13 | 27 | 291 | 395 | 74% | | Greenwich | 548 | 0 | 75 | 623 | 2,010 | 31% | | Hackney | 1,627 | 230 | 248 | 2,105 | 1,085 | 194% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 875 | -33 | 64 | 906 | 450 | 202% | | Haringey | 541 | 687 | -1,198 | 30 | 680 | 4% | | Harrow | 526 | -13 | -36 | 477 | 400 | 119% | | Havering | 427 | 0 | 25 | 452 | 535 | 84% | | Hillingdon | 619 | 8 | 25 | 652 | 365 | 179% | | Hounslow | 648 | 0 | -82 | 566 | 445 | 127% | | Islington | 1,479 | 479 | -50 | 1,908 | 1,160 | 164% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 330 | 9 | 507 | 846 | 350 | 242% | | Kingston upon Thames | 139 | -10 | 170 | 299 | 385 | 78% | | Lambeth | 1,156 | -7 | -226 | 923 | 1,100 | 84% | | Lewisham | 780 | -77 | 0 | 703 | 975 | 72% | | Merton | 329 | 9 | 0 | 338 | 370 | 91% | | Newham | 1,478 | 648 | -468 | 1,658 | 3,510 | 47% | | Redbridge | 950 | 0 | 161 | 1,111 | 905 | 123% | | Richmond upon Thames | 217 | -15 | 170 | 372 | 270 | 138% | | Southwark | 1,341 | -28 | -282 | 1,031 | 1,630 | 63% | | Sutton | 204 | 0 | 75 | 279 | 345 | 81% | | Tower Hamlets | 2,465 | 171 | -2,342 | 294 | 3,150 | 9% | | Waltham Forest | 141 | -14 | 94 | 221 | 665 | 33% | | Wandsworth | 1,573 | -127 | 16 | 1,462 | 745 | 196% | | Westminster | 689 | 294 | 313 | 1,296 | 680 | 209% | | **London** | **24,290** | **2,192** | **-2,841** | **23,641** | **30,500** | **78%** |

Source: London Development Database | | HSSA Data | | Change (fall is positive) | Council Tax Data | | Change (fall is positive) | |------------------------|-----------|-------|---------------------------|------------------|-------|---------------------------| | | 2009 | 2010 | | 2009 | 2010 | | | Barking and Dagenham | 442 | 822 | -380 | 627 | 557 | 70 | | Barnet | 2,020 | 1,618 | 402 | 1,719 | 1,525 | 194 | | Brent | 780 | 685 | 95 | 755 | 670 | 85 | | Bromley | 1,142 | 1,195 | -53 | 733 | 595 | 138 | | Camden | 544 | 562 | -18 | 1,207 | 1,163 | 44 | | City of London | 43 | 21 | 22 | 24 | 23 | 1 | | Croydon | 1,639 | 1,985 | -346 | 1,635 | 1,476 | 159 | | Ealing | 1,121 | 1,346 | -134 | 1,194 | 1,187 | 7 | | Enfield | 1,166 | 1,139 | 27 | 894 | 1,015 | -121 | | Greenwich | 1,278 | 1,203 | 75 | 1,349 | 1,341 | 8 | | Hackney | 912 | 664 | 248 | 2,747 | 2,111 | 636 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 659 | 595 | 64 | 818 | 871 | -53 | | Haringey | 88 | 1,286 | -1,198 | 771 | 742 | 29 | | Harrow | 462 | 498 | -36 | 304 | 251 | 53 | | Havering | 721 | 696 | 25 | 1,269 | 1,123 | 146 | | Hillingdon | 600 | 575 | 25 | 756 | 809 | -53 | | Hounslow | 386 | 468 | -82 | 485 | 508 | -23 | | Islington | 263 | 313 | -50 | 1,396 | 1,077 | 319 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,689 | 1,182 | 507 | 1,330 | 1,104 | 226 | | Kingston upon Thames | 321 | 151 | 170 | 1,228 | 1,125 | 103 | | Lambeth | 1,577 | 1,803 | -226 | 1,884 | 2,226 | -342 | | Lewisham | 369 | 369 | 0 | 801 | 942 | -141 | | Merton | 692 | 692 | 0 | 527 | 527 | 0 | | Newham | 270 | 738 | -468 | 1,945 | 1,445 | 500 | | Redbridge | 1,112 | 951 | 161 | 985 | 813 | 172 | | Richmond upon Thames | 571 | 401 | 170 | 452 | 335 | 117 | | Southwark | 609 | 891 | -282 | 1,267 | 1,628 | -361 | | Sutton | 613 | 538 | 75 | 1,174 | 1,006 | 168 | | Tower Hamlets | 1,358 | 3,700 | -2,342 | 1,371 | 1,623 | -252 | | Waltham Forest | 1,415 | 1,321 | 94 | 837 | 775 | 62 | | Wandsworth | 740 | 724 | 16 | 704 | 657 | 47 | | Westminster | 2,467 | 2,154 | 313 | 2,455 | 2,499 | -44 | | **London** | **28,804**| **31,645**| **-2,841** | **36,645** | **34,671**| **1,974** |

Sources: CLG, Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix data CLG, Housing live table 615 | Borough | Gross conventional supply | Existing homes replaced | Net conventional supply | Conventional component of housing target | Net supply as % of conventional target | |------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 268 | 58 | 210 | 1,191 | 18% | | Barnet | 754 | 83 | 671 | 1,886 | 36% | | Bexley | 374 | 17 | 357 | 338 | 106% | | Brent | 1,002 | 194 | 808 | 915 | 88% | | Bromley | 642 | 89 | 553 | 480 | 115% | | Camden | 671 | 250 | 421 | 437 | 96% | | City of London | 43 | 2 | 41 | 85 | 48% | | Croydon | 1,496 | 125 | 1,371 | 903 | 152% | | Ealing | 588 | 89 | 499 | 833 | 60% | | Enfield | 391 | 114 | 277 | 367 | 75% | | Greenwich | 874 | 326 | 548 | 1,920 | 29% | | Hackney | 1,847 | 220 | 1,627 | 926 | 176% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 995 | 120 | 875 | 393 | 223% | | Haringey | 635 | 94 | 541 | 595 | 91% | | Harrow | 617 | 91 | 526 | 360 | 146% | | Havering | 484 | 57 | 427 | 510 | 84% | | Hillingdon | 666 | 47 | 619 | 317 | 195% | | Hounslow | 676 | 28 | 648 | 434 | 149% | | Islington | 1,633 | 154 | 1,479 | 992 | 149% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 482 | 152 | 330 | 237 | 139% | | Kingston upon Thames | 182 | 43 | 139 | 349 | 40% | | Lambeth | 1,514 | 358 | 1,156 | 1,039 | 111% | | Lewisham | 865 | 85 | 780 | 859 | 91% | | Merton | 404 | 75 | 329 | 352 | 93% | | Newham | 1,581 | 103 | 1,478 | 3,467 | 43% | | Redbridge | 1,055 | 105 | 950 | 901 | 105% | | Richmond upon Thames | 278 | 61 | 217 | 266 | 82% | | Southwark | 1,404 | 63 | 1,341 | 1,103 | 122% | | Sutton | 406 | 202 | 204 | 346 | 59% | | Tower Hamlets | 2,690 | 225 | 2,465 | 2,999 | 82% | | Waltham Forest | 498 | 357 | 141 | 544 | 26% | | Wandsworth | 1,775 | 202 | 1,573 | 692 | 227% | | Westminster | 943 | 254 | 689 | 560 | 123% | | **London** | **28,733** | **4,443** | **24,290** | **27,596** | **88%** |

Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Gross | New build Existing | Gross | Conversions Existing | Gross | Change of use Existing | Gross | Total Existing | Net | New 88% | Con 9% | COU 4% | |------------------------------|-------|--------------------|-------|----------------------|-------|------------------------|-------|---------------|-----|---------|--------|--------| | Barking and Dagenham | 232 | 48 | 184 | 28 | 10 | 18 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 268 | 58 | 210 | | Barnet | 525 | 28 | 497 | 153 | 54 | 99 | 76 | 1 | 75 | 754 | 83 | 671 | | Bexley | 331 | 13 | 318 | 15 | 4 | 11 | 28 | 0 | 28 | 374 | 17 | 357 | | Brent | 737 | 43 | 694 | 173 | 138 | 35 | 92 | 13 | 79 | 1,002 | 194 | 808 | | Bromley | 520 | 49 | 471 | 97 | 38 | 59 | 25 | 2 | 23 | 642 | 89 | 553 | | Camden | 456 | 122 | 334 | 136 | 122 | 14 | 79 | 6 | 73 | 671 | 250 | 421 | | City of London | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 2 | 35 | 43 | 2 | 41 | | Croydon | 1,207 | 61 | 1,146 | 171 | 60 | 111 | 118 | 4 | 114 | 1,496 | 125 | 1,371 | | Ealing | 361 | 13 | 348 | 174 | 71 | 103 | 53 | 5 | 48 | 588 | 89 | 499 | | Enfield | 169 | 42 | 127 | 150 | 64 | 86 | 72 | 8 | 64 | 391 | 114 | 277 | | Greenwich | 405 | 217 | 188 | 112 | 108 | 4 | 357 | 1 | 356 | 874 | 326 | 548 | | Hackney | 1,461 | 56 | 1,405 | 291 | 138 | 153 | 95 | 26 | 69 | 1,847 | 220 | 1,627 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 659 | 3 | 656 | 257 | 116 | 141 | 79 | 1 | 78 | 995 | 120 | 875 | | Haringey | 488 | 39 | 449 | 117 | 53 | 64 | 30 | 2 | 28 | 635 | 94 | 541 | | Harrow | 486 | 41 | 445 | 109 | 47 | 62 | 22 | 3 | 19 | 617 | 91 | 526 | | Havering | 404 | 14 | 390 | 60 | 43 | 17 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 484 | 57 | 427 | | Hillingdon | 460 | 27 | 433 | 40 | 17 | 23 | 166 | 3 | 163 | 666 | 47 | 619 | | Hounslow | 620 | 12 | 608 | 28 | 15 | 13 | 28 | 1 | 27 | 676 | 28 | 648 | | Islington | 1,127 | 49 | 1,078 | 260 | 94 | 166 | 246 | 11 | 235 | 1,633 | 154 | 1,479 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 211 | 11 | 200 | 116 | 139 | -23 | 155 | 2 | 153 | 482 | 152 | 330 | | Kingston upon Thames | 85 | 10 | 75 | 66 | 32 | 34 | 31 | 1 | 30 | 182 | 43 | 139 | | Lambeth | 951 | 150 | 801 | 437 | 189 | 248 | 126 | 19 | 107 | 1,514 | 358 | 1,156 | | Lewisham | 615 | 3 | 612 | 186 | 77 | 109 | 64 | 5 | 59 | 865 | 85 | 780 | | Merton | 276 | 18 | 258 | 105 | 51 | 54 | 23 | 6 | 17 | 404 | 75 | 329 | | Newham | 1,418 | 50 | 1,368 | 97 | 49 | 48 | 66 | 4 | 62 | 1,581 | 103 | 1,478 | | Redbridge | 824 | 31 | 793 | 156 | 72 | 84 | 75 | 2 | 73 | 1,055 | 105 | 950 | | Richmond upon Thames | 177 | 17 | 160 | 57 | 38 | 19 | 44 | 6 | 38 | 278 | 61 | 217 | | Southwark | 1,208 | 11 | 1,197 | 87 | 46 | 41 | 109 | 6 | 103 | 1,404 | 63 | 1,341 | | Sutton | 358 | 175 | 183 | 35 | 21 | 14 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 406 | 202 | 204 | | Tower Hamlets | 2,580 | 174 | 2,406 | 58 | 49 | 9 | 52 | 2 | 50 | 2,690 | 225 | 2,465 | | Waltham Forest | 277 | 301 | -24 | 103 | 52 | 51 | 118 | 4 | 114 | 498 | 357 | 141 | | Wandsworth | 1,457 | 24 | 1,433 | 241 | 173 | 68 | 77 | 5 | 72 | 1,775 | 202 | 1,573 | | Westminster | 473 | 59 | 414 | 194 | 154 | 40 | 276 | 41 | 235 | 943 | 254 | 689 | | **London** | **21,564** | **1,911** | **19,653** | **4,309** | **2,334** | **1,975** | **2,860** | **198** | **2,662** | **28,733** | **4,443** | **24,290** | **81%** | **8%** | **11%** |

London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 7 – February 2011 Table HPM 5 Borough Name Barking and Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Camden City of London Croydon Ealing Enfield Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington Kensington and Chelsea Kingston upon Thames Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Southwark Sutton Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest Wandsworth Westminster London

Net conventional affordable housing supply by tenure, 2007/08 to 2009/10 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2007/08 to 2009/10 Social Intermed Total Social Intermed Total Social Intermed Total Social Intermed Total Social % Rented iate Rented iate Rented iate Rented iate 99 119 218 56 101 157 -1 26 25 154 246 400 39% 14 40 54 237 77 314 126 28 154 377 145 522 72% 90 44 134 51 51 160 79 239 301 123 424 71% 384 39 423 292 297 589 241 173 414 917 509 1,426 64% 115 152 267 125 52 177 121 103 224 361 307 668 54% 42 73 115 148 254 402 133 83 216 323 410 733 44% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 355 270 625 278 138 416 394 302 696 1,027 710 1,737 59% 288 124 412 91 218 309 133 150 283 512 492 1,004 51% 305 139 444 63 10 73 24 6 30 392 155 547 72% 92 169 261 52 187 239 -15 156 141 129 512 641 20% 230 442 672 423 492 915 334 277 611 987 1,211 2,198 45% 40 197 237 197 115 312 148 293 441 385 605 990 39% 106 105 211 143 196 339 147 126 273 396 427 823 48% 41 75 116 76 152 228 129 80 209 246 307 553 44% 100 25 125 109 192 301 30 254 284 239 471 710 34% 72 84 156 135 44 179 127 62 189 334 190 524 64% 162 483 645 171 161 332 215 166 381 548 810 1,358 40% 548 585 1,133 275 54 329 408 62 470 1,231 701 1,932 64% 12 1 13 68 28 96 18 4 22 98 33 131 75% 80 29 109 0 0 0 30 0 30 110 29 139 79% 164 183 347 341 244 585 265 152 417 770 579 1,349 57% 105 128 233 66 139 205 87 81 168 258 348 606 43% 109 135 244 200 65 265 30 19 49 339 219 558 61% 145 292 437 188 402 590 227 485 712 560 1,179 1,739 32% 16 38 54 79 18 97 91 84 175 186 140 326 57% 75 38 113 87 48 135 65 11 76 227 97 324 70% 63 474 537 169 145 314 416 284 700 648 903 1,551 42% 183 10 193 146 97 243 -35 20 -15 294 127 421 70% 622 165 787 529 933 1,462 379 266 645 1,530 1,364 2,894 53% 138 98 236 266 32 298 -139 9 -130 265 139 404 66% 22 287 309 88 394 482 25 454 479 135 1,135 1,270 11% 353 18 371 139 92 231 312 73 385 804 183 987 81% 5,170 5,061 10,231 5,288 5,377 10,665 4,625 4,368 8,993 15,083 14,806 29,889 50%

London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 7 – February 2011

94

### Table HPM 6

**Gross conventional housing completions by tenure and number of bedrooms, London 2009/10**

| Tenure | 1 bed | 2 bed | 3 bed | 4+ bed | Total | |-----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------| | Social | 1,744 | 2,127 | 1,436 | 564 | 5,871 | | Intermediate | 2,078 | 2,013 | 242 | 137 | 4,470 | | Market | 7,981 | 7,751 | 1,845 | 815 | 18,392| | **Total** | **11,803** | **11,891** | **3,523** | **1,516** | **28,733** |

| As % of total | 1 bed | 2 bed | 3 bed | 4+ bed | Total | |---------------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------| | Social | 30% | 36% | 24% | 10% | 100% | | Intermediate | 46% | 45% | 5% | 3% | 100% | | Market | 43% | 42% | 10% | 4% | 100% | | **Total** | **41%** | **41%** | **12%** | **5%** | **100%** |

Source for Table HPM 4, Table HPM 5 and Table HPM 6: London Development Database | | 1 bed | 2 bed | 3 bed | 4+ bed | Total | % 3+ bed | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------|----------| | Barking and Dagenham | 10 | 51 | 6 | 2 | 69 | 12% | | Barnet | 25 | 87 | 36 | 6 | 154 | 27% | | Bexley | 71 | 115 | 50 | 3 | 239 | 22% | | Brent | 149 | 179 | 80 | 52 | 460 | 29% | | Bromley | 56 | 120 | 34 | 14 | 224 | 21% | | Camden | 84 | 70 | 45 | 20 | 219 | 30% | | City | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | | Croydon | 169 | 406 | 92 | 51 | 718 | 20% | | Ealing | 99 | 107 | 59 | 20 | 285 | 28% | | Enfield | 35 | 13 | 9 | 2 | 59 | 19% | | Greenwich | 204 | 177 | 43 | 7 | 431 | 12% | | Hackney | 159 | 243 | 141 | 100 | 643 | 37% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 209 | 143 | 82 | 8 | 442 | 20% | | Haringey | 67 | 121 | 55 | 30 | 273 | 31% | | Harrow | 108 | 77 | 34 | 8 | 227 | 19% | | Havering | 125 | 76 | 44 | 70 | 315 | 36% | | Hillingdon | 91 | 94 | 4 | 0 | 189 | 2% | | Hounslow | 108 | 193 | 76 | 4 | 381 | 21% | | Islington | 210 | 169 | 99 | 27 | 505 | 25% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 4 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 22 | 55% | | Kingston upon Thames | 9 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 30 | 50% | | Lambeth | 145 | 260 | 62 | 24 | 491 | 18% | | Lewisham | 90 | 65 | 6 | 8 | 169 | 8% | | Merton | 23 | 23 | 3 | 0 | 49 | 6% | | Newham | 344 | 323 | 57 | 23 | 747 | 11% | | Redbridge | 63 | 56 | 31 | 25 | 175 | 32% | | Richmond upon Thames | 12 | 51 | 12 | 1 | 76 | 17% | | Southwark | 225 | 305 | 137 | 41 | 708 | 25% | | Sutton | 55 | 32 | 50 | 0 | 137 | 36% | | Tower Hamlets | 322 | 270 | 167 | 57 | 816 | 27% | | Waltham Forest | 108 | 28 | 11 | 22 | 169 | 20% | | Wandsworth | 315 | 129 | 26 | 47 | 517 | 14% | | Westminster | 128 | 145 | 113 | 16 | 402 | 32% | | **London** | **3,822** | **4,140** | **1,678** | **701** | **10,341** | **23%** |

Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Existing | Proposed | Net | Affordable | |------------------------------|----------|----------|-----|------------| | | Social Rented | Intermediates | Market | Social Rented | Intermediates | Market | Total | % | | Barking and Dagenham | 234 | 0 | 31 | 119 | 174 | 341 | -115 | 174 | 310 | 369 | 16% | | Barnet | 0 | 0 | 206 | 635 | 431 | 2,196 | 635 | 431 | 1,990 | 3,056 | 35% | | Bexley | 0 | 0 | 23 | 52 | 12 | 225 | 52 | 12 | 202 | 266 | 24% | | Brent | 351 | 0 | 122 | 791 | 323 | 956 | 440 | 323 | 834 | 1,597 | 48% | | Bromley | 243 | 0 | 137 | 166 | 25 | 880 | -77 | 25 | 743 | 691 | -8% | | Camden | 183 | 0 | 269 | 288 | 69 | 751 | 105 | 69 | 482 | 656 | 27% | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 4 | 23 | 0 | 52 | 23 | 0 | 48 | 71 | 32% | | Croydon | 20 | 0 | 139 | 299 | 52 | 1,210 | 279 | 52 | 1,071 | 1,402 | 24% | | Ealing | 90 | 1 | 197 | 316 | 206 | 1,235 | 226 | 205 | 1,038 | 1,469 | 29% | | Enfield | 0 | 143 | 108 | 124 | 159 | 393 | 124 | 16 | 285 | 425 | 33% | | Greenwich | 1,908 | 0 | 35 | 1,271 | 942 | 3,767 | -637 | 942 | 3,732 | 4,037 | 8% | | Hackney | 136 | 0 | 96 | 788 | 388 | 1,756 | 652 | 388 | 1,660 | 2,700 | 39% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0 | 0 | 96 | 0 | 207 | 806 | 0 | 207 | 710 | 917 | 23% | | Haringey | 0 | 0 | 124 | 125 | 150 | 430 | 125 | 150 | 306 | 581 | 47% | | Harrow | 152 | 0 | 79 | 205 | 73 | 669 | 53 | 73 | 590 | 716 | 18% | | Havering | 466 | 1 | 82 | 549 | 35 | 838 | 83 | 34 | 756 | 873 | 13% | | Hillingdon | 0 | 0 | 45 | 120 | 42 | 487 | 120 | 42 | 442 | 604 | 27% | | Hounslow | 88 | 0 | 84 | 99 | 45 | 379 | 11 | 45 | 295 | 351 | 16% | | Islington | 172 | 6 | 116 | 443 | 288 | 1,621 | 271 | 282 | 1,505 | 2,058 | 27% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 538 | 1 | 181 | 546 | 39 | 673 | 8 | 38 | 492 | 538 | 9% | | Kingston upon Thames | 0 | 1 | 71 | 53 | 17 | 229 | 53 | 16 | 158 | 227 | 30% | | Lambeth | 16 | 0 | 162 | 163 | 149 | 690 | 147 | 149 | 528 | 824 | 36% | | Lewisham | 613 | 0 | 252 | 793 | 435 | 2,938 | 180 | 435 | 2,686 | 3,301 | 19% | | Merton | 0 | 0 | 98 | 53 | 62 | 545 | 53 | 62 | 447 | 562 | 20% | | Newham | 13 | 0 | 53 | 1,036 | 593 | 3,031 | 1,023 | 593 | 2,978 | 4,594 | 35% | | Redbridge | 0 | 0 | 22 | 7 | 27 | 366 | 7 | 27 | 344 | 378 | 9% | | Richmond upon Thames | 4 | 0 | 84 | 46 | 1 | 292 | 42 | 1 | 208 | 251 | 17% | | Southwark | 170 | 2 | 82 | 613 | 245 | 1,209 | 443 | 243 | 1,127 | 1,813 | 38% | | Sutton | 38 | 0 | 73 | 175 | 38 | 298 | 137 | 38 | 225 | 400 | 44% | | Tower Hamlets | 334 | 1 | 205 | 1,322 | 666 | 4,000 | 988 | 665 | 3,795 | 5,448 | 30% | | Waltham Forest | 118 | 0 | 37 | 248 | 105 | 295 | 130 | 105 | 258 | 493 | 48% | | Wandsworth | 3 | 0 | 182 | 194 | 179 | 1,055 | 191 | 179 | 873 | 1,243 | 30% | | Westminster | 4 | 0 | 291 | 135 | 30 | 1,337 | 131 | 30 | 1,046 | 1,207 | 13% | | **London** | **5,894**| **156** | **3,786** | **11,797** | **6,207** | **35,950** | **5,903** | **6,051** | **32,164** | **44,118** | **27%** |

Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Gross | New Build | Existing | Net | Gross | Conversions | Existing | Net | Gross | Change of use | Existing | Net | Gross | All | Existing | Net | |------------------------------|-------|-----------|----------|-----|-------|------------|----------|-----|-------|--------------|----------|-----|-------|-----|----------|-----| | Barking and Dagenham | 553 | 259 | 294 | | 6 | 3 | 3 | | 75 | 3 | 72 | | 634 | 265 | 369 | | Barnet | 2,944 | 82 | 2,862 | | 257 | 117 | 140 | | 61 | 7 | 54 | | 3,262 | 206 | 3,056 | | Bexley | 238 | 6 | 232 | | 26 | 12 | 14 | | 25 | 5 | 20 | | 289 | 23 | 266 | | Brent | 1,958 | 400 | 1,558 | | 89 | 65 | 24 | | 23 | 8 | 15 | | 2,070 | 473 | 1,597 | | Bromley | 885 | 286 | 599 | | 124 | 79 | 45 | | 62 | 15 | 47 | | 1,071 | 380 | 691 | | Camden | 615 | 134 | 481 | | 275 | 288 | -13 | | 218 | 30 | 188 | | 1,108 | 452 | 656 | | City of London | 4 | 0 | 4 | | 11 | 1 | 10 | | 60 | 3 | 57 | | 75 | 4 | 71 | | Croydon | 1,235 | 68 | 1,167 | | 227 | 78 | 149 | | 99 | 13 | 86 | | 1,561 | 159 | 1,402 | | Ealing | 1,262 | 121 | 1,141 | | 254 | 146 | 108 | | 241 | 21 | 220 | | 1,757 | 288 | 1,469 | | Enfield | 464 | 163 | 301 | | 161 | 71 | 90 | | 51 | 17 | 34 | | 676 | 251 | 425 | | Greenwich | 5,649 | 1,920 | 3,729 | | 39 | 14 | 25 | | 292 | 9 | 283 | | 5,980 | 1,943 | 4,037 | | Hackney | 2,644 | 143 | 2,501 | | 205 | 81 | 124 | | 83 | 8 | 75 | | 2,932 | 232 | 2,700 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 723 | 16 | 707 | | 166 | 78 | 88 | | 124 | 2 | 122 | | 1,013 | 96 | 917 | | Haringey | 448 | 45 | 403 | | 162 | 78 | 84 | | 95 | 1 | 94 | | 705 | 124 | 581 | | Harrow | 822 | 186 | 636 | | 98 | 40 | 58 | | 27 | 5 | 22 | | 947 | 231 | 716 | | Havering | 1,337 | 524 | 813 | | 49 | 20 | 29 | | 36 | 5 | 31 | | 1,422 | 549 | 873 | | Hillingdon | 576 | 29 | 547 | | 38 | 12 | 26 | | 35 | 4 | 31 | | 649 | 45 | 604 | | Hounslow | 461 | 94 | 367 | | 39 | 31 | 8 | | 23 | 47 | -24 | | 523 | 172 | 351 | | Islington | 1,988 | 181 | 1,807 | | 229 | 104 | 125 | | 135 | 9 | 126 | | 2,352 | 294 | 2,058 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,045 | 581 | 464 | | 118 | 118 | 0 | | 95 | 21 | 74 | | 1,258 | 720 | 538 | | Kingston upon Thames | 223 | 24 | 199 | | 59 | 43 | 16 | | 16 | 4 | 12 | | 298 | 71 | 227 | | Lambeth | 654 | 5 | 649 | | 282 | 157 | 125 | | 66 | 16 | 50 | | 1,002 | 178 | 824 | | Lewisham | 3,846 | 759 | 3,087 | | 216 | 97 | 119 | | 104 | 9 | 95 | | 4,166 | 865 | 3,301 | | Merton | 549 | 39 | 510 | | 68 | 54 | 14 | | 43 | 5 | 38 | | 660 | 98 | 562 | | Newham | 4,504 | 0 | 4,504 | | 106 | 61 | 45 | | 50 | 5 | 45 | | 4,660 | 66 | 4,594 | | Redbridge | 363 | 3 | 360 | | 21 | 14 | 7 | | 16 | 5 | 11 | | 400 | 22 | 378 | | Richmond upon Thames | 206 | 28 | 178 | | 94 | 54 | 40 | | 39 | 6 | 33 | | 339 | 88 | 251 | | Southwark | 1,839 | 152 | 1,687 | | 144 | 92 | 52 | | 84 | 10 | 74 | | 2,067 | 254 | 1,813 | | Sutton | 417 | 49 | 368 | | 67 | 46 | 21 | | 27 | 16 | 11 | | 511 | 111 | 400 | | Tower Hamlets | 5,926 | 475 | 5,451 | | 40 | 16 | 24 | | 22 | 49 | -27 | | 5,988 | 540 | 5,448 | | Waltham Forest | 500 | 124 | 376 | | 67 | 27 | 40 | | 81 | 4 | 77 | | 648 | 155 | 493 | | Wandsworth | 1,095 | 28 | 1,067 | | 203 | 148 | 55 | | 130 | 9 | 121 | | 1,428 | 185 | 1,243 | | Westminster | 958 | 121 | 837 | | 193 | 132 | 61 | | 351 | 42 | 309 | | 1,502 | 295 | 1,207 | | **London** | **46,931** | **7,045** | **39,886** | **4,133** | **2,377** | **1,756** | **2,889** | **413** | **2,476** | **53,953** | **9,835** | **44,118** |

Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Social Rented | Intermediate | Market | Grand Total | % Affordable | |----------------------|---------------|--------------|--------|-------------|--------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 354 | 324 | 896 | 1,574 | 43% | | Barnet | 65 | 351 | 632 | 1,048 | 40% | | Bexley | 144 | 12 | 242 | 398 | 39% | | Brent | 46 | 198 | 581 | 825 | 30% | | Bromley | 186 | 39 | 281 | 506 | 44% | | Camden | 38 | 30 | 275 | 343 | 20% | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 290 | 290 | 0% | | Croydon | 237 | 82 | 503 | 822 | 39% | | Ealing | 43 | 67 | 246 | 356 | 31% | | Enfield | 13 | 32 | 224 | 269 | 17% | | Greenwich | 753 | 358 | 1,920 | 3,031 | 37% | | Hackney | 509 | 275 | 1,212 | 1,996 | 39% | | Hammersmith and Fulham| 39 | 148 | 279 | 466 | 40% | | Haringey | 12 | 4 | 183 | 199 | 8% | | Harrow | -38 | 48 | 162 | 172 | 6% | | Havering | 75 | 28 | 171 | 274 | 38% | | Hillingdon | 190 | 84 | 571 | 845 | 32% | | Hounslow | 62 | 41 | 164 | 267 | 39% | | Islington | 141 | 221 | 1,012 | 1,374 | 26% | | Kensington and Chelsea| 129 | 61 | 427 | 617 | 31% | | Kingston upon Thames | 54 | 0 | 70 | 124 | 44% | | Lambeth | 43 | 133 | 686 | 862 | 20% | | Lewisham | 23 | 95 | 279 | 397 | 30% | | Merton | 79 | 61 | 330 | 470 | 30% | | Newham | 818 | 486 | 2,258 | 3,562 | 37% | | Redbridge | 47 | 27 | 319 | 393 | 19% | | Richmond upon Thames | 54 | 9 | 199 | 262 | 24% | | Southwark | 180 | 122 | 633 | 935 | 32% | | Sutton | 77 | 58 | 525 | 660 | 20% | | Tower Hamlets | 386 | 223 | 1,521 | 2,130 | 29% | | Waltham Forest | 24 | 14 | 194 | 232 | 16% | | Wandsworth | 42 | 159 | 514 | 715 | 28% | | Westminster | 62 | 22 | 232 | 316 | 27% | | **London** | **4,887** | **3,812** | **18,031** | **26,730** | **33%** |

Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Gross | Existing | Net | Gross | Conversions | Existing | Net | Gross | Change of use | Existing | Net | Gross | All | Existing | Net | |------------------------------|-------|----------|-------|-------|------------|----------|-------|-------|--------------|----------|-------|-------|-----|----------|-------| | Barking and Dagenham | 1,709 | 260 | 1,449 | 16 | 6 | 10 | 115 | 0 | 115 | 1,840 | 266 | 1,574 | | Barnet | 1,616 | 609 | 1,007 | 38 | 18 | 20 | 22 | 1 | 21 | 1,676 | 628 | 1,048 | | Bexley | 404 | 18 | 386 | 12 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 422 | 24 | 398 | | Brent | 1,181 | 445 | 736 | 145 | 104 | 41 | 62 | 14 | 48 | 1,388 | 563 | 825 | | Bromley | 454 | 37 | 417 | 125 | 79 | 46 | 49 | 6 | 43 | 628 | 122 | 506 | | Camden | 271 | 12 | 259 | 117 | 129 | -12 | 114 | 18 | 96 | 502 | 159 | 343 | | City of London | 284 | 14 | 270 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 3 | 20 | 307 | 17 | 290 | | Croydon | 529 | 27 | 502 | 238 | 79 | 159 | 165 | 4 | 161 | 932 | 110 | 822 | | Ealing | 296 | 111 | 185 | 146 | 64 | 82 | 91 | 2 | 89 | 533 | 177 | 356 | | Enfield | 173 | 44 | 129 | 148 | 65 | 83 | 63 | 6 | 57 | 384 | 115 | 269 | | Greenwich | 2,742 | 9 | 2,733 | 40 | 18 | 22 | 281 | 5 | 276 | 3,063 | 32 | 3,031 | | Hackney | 1,862 | 95 | 1,767 | 301 | 135 | 166 | 98 | 35 | 63 | 2,261 | 265 | 1,996 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 280 | 2 | 278 | 201 | 91 | 110 | 79 | 1 | 78 | 560 | 94 | 466 | | Haringey | 114 | 13 | 101 | 118 | 56 | 62 | 38 | 2 | 36 | 270 | 71 | 199 | | Harrow | 321 | 225 | 96 | 95 | 40 | 55 | 27 | 6 | 21 | 443 | 271 | 172 | | Havering | 345 | 100 | 245 | 27 | 12 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 14 | 387 | 113 | 274 | | Hillingdon | 620 | 12 | 608 | 38 | 17 | 21 | 18 | 2 | 16 | 876 | 31 | 845 | | Hounslow | 178 | 9 | 169 | 24 | 9 | 15 | 92 | 9 | 83 | 294 | 27 | 267 | | Islington | 1,258 | 198 | 1,060 | 187 | 70 | 117 | 209 | 12 | 197 | 1,654 | 280 | 1,374 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 531 | 13 | 518 | 81 | 61 | 20 | 79 | 0 | 79 | 691 | 74 | 617 | | Kingston upon Thames | 121 | 17 | 104 | 42 | 26 | 16 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 167 | 43 | 124 | | Lambeth | 892 | 188 | 704 | 217 | 96 | 121 | 49 | 12 | 37 | 1,158 | 296 | 862 | | Lewisham | 383 | 99 | 284 | 145 | 70 | 75 | 44 | 6 | 38 | 572 | 175 | 397 | | Merton | 448 | 27 | 421 | 72 | 33 | 39 | 14 | 4 | 10 | 534 | 64 | 470 | | Newham | 3,508 | 23 | 3,485 | 80 | 41 | 39 | 45 | 7 | 38 | 3,633 | 71 | 3,562 | | Redbridge | 384 | 2 | 382 | 14 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 403 | 10 | 393 | | Richmond upon Thames | 222 | 29 | 193 | 80 | 53 | 27 | 48 | 6 | 42 | 350 | 88 | 262 | | Southwark | 835 | 18 | 817 | 86 | 45 | 41 | 84 | 7 | 77 | 1,005 | 70 | 935 | | Sutton | 958 | 320 | 638 | 20 | 12 | 8 | 20 | 6 | 14 | 998 | 338 | 660 | | Tower Hamlets | 2,304 | 221 | 2,083 | 30 | 16 | 14 | 34 | 1 | 33 | 2,368 | 238 | 2,130 | | Waltham Forest | 103 | 2 | 101 | 77 | 32 | 45 | 89 | 3 | 86 | 269 | 37 | 232 | | Wandsworth | 547 | 24 | 523 | 247 | 193 | 54 | 143 | 5 | 138 | 937 | 222 | 715 | | Westminster | 193 | 50 | 143 | 134 | 80 | 54 | 138 | 19 | 119 | 465 | 149 | 316 | | **London** | **26,266** | **3,273** | **22,993** | **3,341** | **1,759** | **1,582** | **2,363** | **208** | **2,155** | **31,970** | **5,240** | **26,730** |

Source: London Development Database | London Borough | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | |---------------|----------|----------|-----|----------|----------|-----|----------|----------|-----| | Barking and Dagenham | 11,584 | 29 | 11,555 | 1,911 | 268 | 1,643 | 13,495 | 297 | 13,198 | | Barnet | 7,272 | 1,345 | 5,927 | 2,456 | 826 | 1,630 | 9,728 | 2,171 | 7,557 | | Bexley | 1,176 | 41 | 1,135 | 488 | 45 | 443 | 1,664 | 86 | 1,578 | | Brent | 6,107 | 337 | 5,770 | 1,671 | 516 | 1,155 | 7,778 | 853 | 6,925 | | Bromley | 2,716 | 487 | 2,229 | 995 | 205 | 790 | 3,711 | 692 | 3,019 | | Camden | 1,570 | 531 | 1,039 | 2,909 | 364 | 2,545 | 4,479 | 895 | 3,584 | | City of London | 187 | 9 | 178 | 392 | 17 | 375 | 579 | 26 | 553 | | Croydon | 4,135 | 335 | 3,800 | 2,137 | 133 | 2,004 | 6,272 | 468 | 5,804 | | Ealing | 2,290 | 248 | 2,042 | 1,280 | 543 | 737 | 3,570 | 791 | 2,779 | | Enfield | 1,405 | 341 | 1,064 | 1,166 | 108 | 1,058 | 2,571 | 449 | 2,122 | | Greenwich | 20,173 | 2,023 | 18,150 | 6,377 | 110 | 6,267 | 26,550 | 2,133 | 24,417 | | Hackney | 3,366 | 833 | 2,533 | 2,574 | 229 | 2,345 | 5,940 | 1,062 | 4,878 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 1,790 | 193 | 1,597 | 356 | 25 | 331 | 2,146 | 218 | 1,928 | | Haringey | 1,375 | 215 | 1,160 | 1,602 | 155 | 1,447 | 2,977 | 370 | 2,607 | | Harrow | 1,398 | 305 | 1,093 | 1,629 | 428 | 1,201 | 3,027 | 733 | 2,294 | | Havering | 1,749 | 508 | 1,241 | 1,073 | 126 | 947 | 2,822 | 634 | 2,188 | | Hillingdon | 1,067 | 113 | 954 | 2,629 | 89 | 2,540 | 3,696 | 202 | 3,494 | | Hounslow | 1,395 | 202 | 1,193 | 1,857 | 237 | 1,620 | 3,252 | 439 | 2,813 | | Islington | 4,452 | 534 | 3,918 | 2,059 | 458 | 1,601 | 6,511 | 992 | 5,519 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,906 | 886 | 1,020 | 834 | 95 | 739 | 2,740 | 981 | 1,759 | | Kingston upon Thames | 1,012 | 140 | 872 | 386 | 60 | 326 | 1,398 | 200 | 1,198 | | Lambeth | 4,966 | 1,402 | 3,564 | 2,488 | 256 | 2,232 | 7,454 | 1,658 | 5,796 | | Lewisham | 5,489 | 902 | 4,587 | 1,429 | 205 | 1,224 | 6,918 | 1,107 | 5,811 | | Merton | 1,059 | 159 | 900 | 1,075 | 69 | 1,006 | 2,134 | 228 | 1,906 | | Newham | 12,806 | 308 | 12,498 | 5,316 | 48 | 5,268 | 18,122 | 356 | 17,766 | | Redbridge | 758 | 125 | 633 | 1,203 | 45 | 1,158 | 1,961 | 170 | 1,791 | | Richmond upon Thames | 696 | 140 | 556 | 736 | 148 | 588 | 1,432 | 288 | 1,144 | | Southwark | 5,087 | 305 | 4,782 | 2,841 | 161 | 2,680 | 7,928 | 466 | 7,462 | | Sutton | 930 | 120 | 810 | 971 | 326 | 645 | 1,901 | 446 | 1,455 | | Tower Hamlets | 10,375 | 683 | 9,692 | 10,693 | 664 | 10,029 | 21,068 | 1,347 | 19,721 | | Waltham Forest | 1,214 | 254 | 960 | 506 | 41 | 465 | 1,720 | 295 | 1,425 | | Wandsworth | 2,981 | 293 | 2,688 | 1,754 | 167 | 1,587 | 4,735 | 460 | 4,275 | | Westminster | 2,383 | 533 | 1,850 | 1,711 | 281 | 1,430 | 4,094 | 814 | 3,280 | | **London** | **126,869** | **14,879** | **111,990** | **67,504** | **7,448** | **60,056** | **194,373** | **22,327** | **172,046** |

Source: London Development Database Map HPM 3 Net conventional affordable housing supply as % of total net conventional supply, 2007/08 to 2009/10

Map HPM 4 Housing pipeline: Net homes not started or under construction, as at 31 March 2010 Affordable housing delivery monitor

As explained in the introduction to this Housing Provision Monitor, the measure of affordable housing delivery used in the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy is very different from the measure of housing provision used in the London Plan. Affordable housing delivery is measured in gross terms and includes acquisitions of existing private sector homes for use as affordable housing. It is therefore typically considerably higher in any given year than the net provision of affordable housing in planning terms reported in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report and the Housing Provision Monitor.

This section monitors affordable housing delivery in London against the targets set out in the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy: Policy 1.1B: The current investment programme will deliver 50,000 affordable homes in London over the four years 2008/09 to 2011/2012. Policy 1.2A: Of the 50,000 affordable homes to be delivered, 20,000 will be intermediate homes. Policy 1.3A: Of the 50,000 affordable homes to be delivered, 30,000 will be social rented homes.

The data source for monitoring these targets is the set of statistics on ‘affordable housing supply’ published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. These statistics are compiled from a range of sources, but the vast majority of delivery in recent years has been funded the Homes and Communities Agency. DCLG report data on the basis of where the affordable homes were located and separately according to the ‘area providing funding’. In practice this distinction primarily arises when a household from one local authority (the area providing funding) purchases an intermediate affordable home in another.

Table AHM 1 below shows affordable housing delivery in London by type in the three years 2007/08 to 2009/10. Over this period a total of 41,750 homes were delivered, of which 21,300 were social housing and 20,460 were intermediate housing. As DCLG publish their statistics approximately six months after the end of each financial year, performance against the four-year targets in the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy will be assessed in late 2012.

Figure AHM 1 shows the trend in total affordable housing delivery in London since 1991/92. Delivery peaked at just over 17,000 in 1995/96, fell to 8,290 in 1999/2000 and rose again to a recent peak of 15,110 in 2007/08.

Figure AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery in London, 1991/92 to 2009/10

Source: CLG

______________________________________________________________________

12 See Housing Live Tables: http://is.gd/CLGaffordable 13 Data from Housing Live Table 1000 Table AHM 2 shows delivery of social and intermediate housing by London borough in 2009/10, broken down first by area providing funding and then by area where homes are located. On both measures the borough with the highest affordable housing delivery was Tower Hamlets, followed by Hackney and Croydon. There was again very wide variation between boroughs in terms of both total delivery and the split between social and intermediate housing.

Table AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery in London by type, 2007/08 to 2009/10

| | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | Total | |--------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|--------| | **Social Rent, of which:** | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 7,910 | 6,310 | 7,080 | 21,300 | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 5,140 | 4,140 | 5,300 | 14,580 | | Other Homes and Communities Agency Schemes | 1,950 | 1,760 | 1,400 | 5,110 | | Local authorities (new build) | 250 | 170 | 60 | 480 | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 30 | 10 | 10 | 50 | | of which: IMS only | 90 | 20 | 30 | 140 | | Private Finance Initiative | - | 40 | 20 | 60 | | **Intermediate Affordable Housing** | 7,200 | 6,770 | 6,490 | 20,460 | | **Intermediate Rent, of which:** | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 720 | 470 | 810 | 2,000 | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 680 | 460 | 740 | 1,880 | | **Low Cost Home Ownership, of which:** | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 6,480 | 6,300 | 5,680 | 18,460 | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 3,970 | 3,420 | 3,020 | 10,410 | | Other Homes and Communities Agency Schemes | 770 | 1,280 | 1,460 | 3,510 | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 40 | - | - | 40 | | of which: IMS only | 230 | 170 | 240 | 640 | | Assisted Purchase Schemes | 980 | 1,200 | 730 | 2,910 | | **All affordable** | 15,110 | 13,070 | 13,570 | 41,750 |

See DCLG Live Table 1000 for sources and notes http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/affordablehousingsupply/livetables/ | Borough | By area providing funding | By area where homes located | |-------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------| | | Social | Intermediate | Total | Social | Intermediate | Total | | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 90 | 150 | 60 | 120 | 180 | | Barnet | 80 | 130 | 210 | 80 | 130 | 210 | | Bexley | 150 | 100 | 250 | 150 | 120 | 270 | | Brent | 430 | 210 | 640 | 390 | 180 | 570 | | Bromley | 150 | 170 | 320 | 140 | 180 | 320 | | Camden | 120 | 130 | 250 | 120 | 100 | 220 | | Croydon | 470 | 510 | 980 | 480 | 530 | 1,010 | | City of London | 0 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 10 | 10 | | Ealing | 210 | 160 | 370 | 250 | 150 | 400 | | Enfield | 120 | 100 | 220 | 120 | 100 | 220 | | Greenwich | 240 | 150 | 390 | 240 | 150 | 390 | | Hackney | 610 | 670 | 1,280 | 610 | 650 | 1,260 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 160 | 420 | 580 | 160 | 400 | 560 | | Haringey | 160 | 150 | 310 | 160 | 140 | 300 | | Harrow | 150 | 140 | 290 | 150 | 140 | 290 | | Havering | 0 | 70 | 70 | 0 | 100 | 100 | | Hillingdon | 250 | 150 | 400 | 250 | 160 | 410 | | Hounslow | 190 | 260 | 450 | 190 | 250 | 440 | | Islington | 210 | 140 | 350 | 210 | 110 | 320 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 10 | 40 | 50 | 10 | 20 | 30 | | Kingston upon Thames | 30 | 60 | 90 | 30 | 50 | 80 | | Lambeth | 420 | 290 | 710 | 420 | 270 | 690 | | Lewisham | 170 | 160 | 330 | 170 | 160 | 330 | | Merton | 40 | 50 | 90 | 40 | 50 | 90 | | Newham | 260 | 470 | 730 | 260 | 440 | 700 | | Redbridge | 170 | 160 | 330 | 170 | 170 | 340 | | Richmond upon Thames | 30 | 20 | 50 | 30 | 30 | 60 | | Southwark | 400 | 270 | 670 | 400 | 250 | 650 | | Sutton | 60 | 50 | 110 | 60 | 80 | 140 | | Tower Hamlets | 1,260 | 760 | 2,020 | 1,260 | 730 | 1,990 | | Waltham Forest | 150 | 90 | 240 | 150 | 100 | 250 | | Wandsworth | 20 | 260 | 280 | 20 | 250 | 270 | | Westminster | 290 | 220 | 510 | 290 | 180 | 470 | | **London** | **7,070** | **6,670** | **13,740** | **7,070** | **6,500** | **13,570** | Map AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery (by area where homes located), 2009/10

Source: The London Development Database © Crown copyright; all rights reserved. Crown London Authority 100032979 (2011)